Indicate by check mark if the Registrants are well-known seasoned issuers, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities
Act. Yes ☐ No ☒

Indicate by check mark if the
Registrants are not required to file pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act. Yes ☒ No ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrants (1) have filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Exchange Act during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrants were required to file such reports), and (2) have been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90
days. Yes ☐ No ☒

Note: As voluntary filers, not subject
to the filing requirements, the Registrants have filed all reports under Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act during the preceding 12 months.

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrants have submitted electronically and posted on their corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive
Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrants were required to submit and post such
files). Yes ☒ No ☐

Indicate by check mark if disclosure
of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of the Registrants knowledge, in definitive proxy or information
statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. Not Applicable.

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrants are large accelerated filers, accelerated filers,
non-accelerated filers or smaller reporting companies. See the definitions of large accelerated filer, accelerated filer and smaller reporting company in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

Large accelerated filers

☐

Accelerated filers

☐

Non-accelerated filers

☒

Smaller reporting companies

☐

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrants are shell companies (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ☐ No ☒

State the aggregate market value of the common equity held by non-affiliates of the Registrants: Not
Applicable

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of the Registrants common stock: Not Applicable

*

Mediacom Broadband Corporation meets the conditions set forth in General Instruction I (1) (a) and (b) of
Form 10-K and is therefore filing this form with the reduced disclosure format.

This Annual Report on Form 10-K is for the year ended
December 31, 2016. Any statement contained in a prior periodic report shall be deemed to be modified or superseded for purposes of this Annual Report to the extent that a statement herein modifies or supersedes such statement. The Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC) allows us to incorporate by reference information that we file with them, which means that we can disclose important information by referring you directly to those documents. Information
incorporated by reference is considered to be part of this Annual Report.

Mediacom Broadband LLC is a Delaware limited liability company
and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mediacom Communications Corporation, a Delaware corporation. Mediacom Broadband Corporation is a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mediacom Broadband LLC. Mediacom Broadband Corporation was formed
for the sole purpose of acting as co-issuer with Mediacom Broadband LLC of debt securities and does not conduct operations of its own.

References in this Annual Report to we, us, or our are to Mediacom Broadband LLC and its direct and
indirect subsidiaries (including Mediacom Broadband Corporation), unless the context specifies or requires otherwise. References in this Annual Report to Mediacom or MCC are to Mediacom Communications Corporation.

You should carefully review the information contained in this Annual Report and in other reports or documents that we file from time to time
with the SEC.

In this Annual Report, we state our beliefs of future events and of our future financial performance. In some cases, you
can identify those so-called forward-looking statements by words such as anticipates, believes, continue, could, estimates,
expects, intends, may, plans, potential, predicts, should or will, or the negative of those and other comparable words. These forward-looking statements
are not guarantees of future performance or results, and are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from historical results or those we anticipate as a result of various factors, many of which are
beyond our control. Factors that may cause such differences to occur include, but are not limited to:



increased levels of competition from direct broadcast satellite operators, local phone companies, other cable
providers, wireless communications companies, providers of over-the-top video, and other services that compete for our customers;



lower demand for our services from existing and potential residential and business customers due to increased
competition, weakened economic conditions or other factors;



our ability to contain the continued increases in video programming costs, or to raise video rates to offset,
in whole or in part, the effects of such costs, including retransmission consent fees;



an acceleration in bandwidth consumption by high-speed data customers at rates greater than current
expectations, which could require unplanned network investments and meaningfully increase our capital expenditures;



our ability to continue to grow our business services customer base, and associated revenues, which has
continued to make increasing contributions to our results of operations;



our ability to realize the anticipated benefits from the major initiatives under MCCs plan for
approximately $1 billion in total capital expenditures during the three years ending December 31, 2018, as further described in this Annual Report;



our ability to successfully adopt new technologies and introduce new products and services, or enhance
existing ones, to meet customer demands and preferences;



our ability to secure hardware, software and operational support for the delivery of products and services to
consumers;



disruptions or failures of our network and information systems, including those caused by
cyber-attacks, natural disasters or other events outside our control;



our reliance on certain intellectual property rights, and not infringing on the intellectual property rights
of others;

our ability to refinance future debt maturities on favorable terms, if at all;



changes in assumptions underlying our critical accounting policies;



changes in legislative and regulatory matters that may cause us to incur additional costs and expenses; and



other risks and uncertainties discussed in this Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2016 and
other reports or documents that we file from time to time with the SEC.

Statements included in this Annual Report are
based upon information known to us as of the date that this Annual Report is filed with the SEC, and we assume no obligation to update or alter our forward-looking statements made in this Annual Report, whether as a result of new information, future
events or otherwise, except as required by applicable federal securities laws.

We are a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mediacom Communications Corporation (Mediacom or MCC). MCC is the fifth largest
cable operator in the U.S., serving almost 1.4 million residential and business customer relationships in smaller markets primarily in the Midwest and Southeast. MCC offers a wide array of information, communications and entertainment services
to households and businesses, including video, high-speed data (HSD), phone, and home security and automation. Through Mediacom Business, MCC provides scalable broadband communications solutions to commercial and public sector customers
of all sizes, and sells advertising and production services under the OnMedia brand.

MCCs cable systems are owned and operated
through our operating subsidiaries and those of Mediacom LLC, another wholly-owned subsidiary of MCC. As of December 31, 2016, MCCs cable systems passed an estimated 2.8 million homes and served approximately 828,000 video customers,
1,156,000 HSD customers and 479,000 phone customers, aggregating 2.5 million primary service units (PSUs).

MCC is a
privately-owned company. An entity wholly-owned by Rocco B. Commisso and related parties is the sole shareholder of MCC, a C corporation. Mr. Commisso is MCCs founder, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. MCC manages us pursuant to
management agreements with our operating subsidiaries. See Note 9 in our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

Mediacom Broadband LLC

We are a holding company and do not have any operations or hold any assets other than our investments in our operating subsidiaries. As of
December 31, 2016, our cable systems passed an estimated 1.5 million homes and served approximately 463,000 video customers, 643,000 HSD customers and 264,000 phone customers, aggregating 1.4 million PSUs. As of the same date, our
cable systems served 754,000 residential and business customer relationships.

Our phone number is
(845) 443-2600 and our principal executive offices are located at 1 Mediacom Way, Mediacom Park, New York, 10918. Our Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports
on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and any amendments to such reports filed with or furnished to the SEC under sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 are made available free of charge on MCCs website (www.mediacomcc.com) as soon as reasonably practicable after such reports are electronically filed with or furnished to the SEC. The information posted on MCCs website
is not incorporated into our SEC filings.

Recent Developments

MCCs Capital Plan

In 2016, MCC announced a plan for approximately $1 billion of total capital expenditures to be made by us and Mediacom LLC during the
three years ending December 2018 (MCCs Capital Plan). Among the planned initiatives under MCCs Capital Plan include:

-

Project Gigabit, a wide-scale deployment of next-generation DOCSIS 3.1 technology that allows
the provisioning of 1 gigabit per second (Gbps) HSD service to substantially all of MCCs homes passed;

-

Project Open Road, which will connect over 70,000 new commercial locations that contain
multiple potential customers in an effort to continue to grow business services revenues at an accelerated rate;

-

Residential line extensions resulting in at least 50,000 additional homes passed; and

-

Development of community Wi-Fi access points throughout high-traffic commercial and public areas.

During the year ended December 31, 2016, MCC made an aggregate $335.2 million of capital expenditures, of
which $179.9 million was invested by us. We expect similar levels of capital investments by us and MCC over each of the next two years, with our portion of the initiatives outlined above approximating a level that is commensurate with our
capital expenditures as a percentage of MCCs total capital expenditures. We have already made meaningful progress under MCCs Capital Plan, including the recent announcement that MCC has become the first major U.S. cable company to have
fully installed the necessary equipment to transition to the DOCSIS 3.1 platform. We believe these initiatives will allow us to continue to improve our competitive position for both residential and business services customers in our markets,
with additional future revenue and cash flow growth driven by incremental gains in market share than we would have experienced otherwise.

The following table provides an overview of selected operating data for our cable systems as of December 31:

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

Estimated homes passed (1)

1,504,000

1,496,000

1,499,000

1,495,000

1,493,000

Video

Video customers (2)

463,000

480,000

500,000

528,000

558,000

Video penetration (3)

30.8

%

32.1

%

33.4

%

35.3

%

37.4

%

High Speed Data

HSD customers (4)

643,000

605,000

564,000

534,000

505,000

HSD penetration (5)

42.8

%

40.4

%

37.6

%

35.7

%

33.8

%

Phone

Phone customers (6)

264,000

239,000

218,000

207,000

190,000

Phone penetration (7)

17.6

%

16.0

%

14.5

%

13.8

%

12.7

%

Primary Service Units (PSUs)

PSUs (8)

1,370,000

1,324,000

1,282,000

1,269,000

1,253,000

PSU penetration (9)

91.1

%

88.5

%

85.5

%

84.9

%

83.9

%

Customer Relationships

Customer relationships (10)

754,000

732,000

710,000

710,000

708,000

(1)

Estimated homes passed represent the number of single residence homes, apartments and condominium units that
we can connect to our distribution system without further extending the transmission lines, based on best available information.

(2)

Represents customers receiving video service. Business services video customers that are billed on a bulk
basis are converted into equivalent video customers by dividing their associated revenues by the applicable full-price residential video rate, which is generally consistent with the methodology used in determining payments made to programmers. Video
customers include connections to schools, libraries, local government offices and employee households that may not be charged for basic or expanded video service, but may be charged for higher tier video, HSD, phone or other services. Our
methodology of calculating the number of video customers may not be identical to those used by other companies offering similar services.

(3)

Represents video customers as a percentage of estimated homes passed.

(4)

Represents customers receiving HSD service. Small- to medium-sized
business HSD customers are converted to equivalent HSD customers by dividing their associated revenues by the applicable full-price residential HSD rate. Medium- to large-sized business customers who take our
enterprise network services are not counted as HSD customers. Our methodology of calculating HSD customers may not be identical to those used by other companies offering similar services.

(5)

Represents HSD customers as a percentage of estimated homes passed.

(6)

Represents customers receiving phone service. Small- to medium-sized
business phone customers are converted to equivalent phone customers by dividing their associated revenues by the applicable full-price residential phone rate. Customers who take our IP-enabled voice trunk
service are not counted as phone customers. Our methodology of calculating phone customers may not be identical to those used by other companies offering similar services.

(7)

Represents phone customers as a percentage of estimated homes passed.

(8)

Represents the sum of video, HSD and phone customers.

(9)

Represents PSUs as a percentage of our estimated homes passed.

(10)

Represents the total number of residential and business customers that receive at least one service, without
regard to the amount of or which service(s) customers purchase.

Services

We offer video, HSD and phone services individually and in bundled packages to residential and small- to
medium-sized business (SMB) customers over our hybrid fiber and coaxial cable (HFC) network, and provide fiber-based network and transport services to medium- and large-sized businesses, governments and educational institutions. We also sell advertising to local, regional and national advertisers on television and digital platforms, and offer home security and automation
services to residential customers.

Our services are typically offered on a subscription basis, with installation fees, monthly rates
and related charges associated with the services, equipment and features customers choose. We generally offer discounted packages for new customers, and for those who take multiple services. Customers are typically billed in advance on a monthly
basis, and additional charges may apply for installation and other one-time items. Residential customers are generally not subject to minimum-term contracts, while substantially all of our business services
customers are under contracts that typically have 3 to 7 year terms.

Our Service Areas

Approximately 75% of our homes passed are in the top 110 television markets in the United States, or designated market areas
(DMAs), substantially all of which rank between the 65th and 110th largest.

Our largest markets are:



Des Moines and Cedar Rapids, Iowa;



The Quad Cities area in Illinois and Iowa, comprising Bettendorf, Davenport, East Moline, Moline and Rock
Island;



Springfield, Jefferson City and Columbia, Missouri; and



Columbus, Albany and Valdosta, Georgia.

Residential Services

We market our
residential services individually and in bundled packages, with discounts generally available for the subscription to bundled packages or other combinations of services. As of December 31, 2016, approximately 57% of our residential customers
took two or more of our services, including about 25% that took all three.

Video

We offer a wide variety of video services, with multiple packages, tiers and equipment options to appeal to a variety of customer preferences
and demographics. Residential video customers are charged a monthly fee that varies depending on the level of video service and equipment taken, with additional revenues generated from one-time installation
expenses, video-on-demand (VOD) fees and other ancillary purchases.

Our residential video customers receive, at a minimum, a limited basic tier that includes local broadcast stations and public, government and
leased access channels, with additional packages and tiers available that include national cable networks and regional sports networks, foreign-language and international programming, digital music channels and other specialty programming. Video
customers may also subscribe to premium network programming from HBO, Showtime, Starz and Cinemax that provides commercial-free original programming, movies, live and taped sporting events and concerts, and other special events. We have recently
introduced skinny bundles as a value proposition to video customers that do not require certain national and regional sports networks, but seek a lower cost option that offers most of the
non-sports content in our most popular video packages. Most of our video programming, including many titles in our VOD library, is available in a high-definition (HD) format that offers a higher
resolution picture, improved audio quality and a wide-screen format.

Our VOD service provides video customers access to over 27,000
titles, including a wide selection of movies, national broadcast and cable network shows, music videos, and locally produced events. Most of our VOD content carries no additional charge when customers take a content package that includes the
affiliated content. Special event programs, including live concerts, sporting events, and first-run movies are also available on a
pay-per-view basis. Our digital video recorder (DVR) service allows customers to record and store content to view at their convenience, along with the
ability to pause and rewind live programming.

Our video service generally requires the use of a digital
set-top box (set-top), which typically provides an interactive, on-screen program guide and access to our VOD
library. A rapidly increasing number of our video customers take our next-generation Internet Protocol (IP) set-top that offers a cloud-based, graphically-rich TiVo guide with integrated access and
search functionality to certain Internet-based, or over-the-top, (OTT) video services such as Netflix, Hulu, and YouTube, along with a multi-room
DVR service and the ability to download certain content to personal devices. In 2017, we plan to introduce a new, lower-cost, IP set-top that offers the TiVo guide and OTT video services, but without the
required equipment for DVR service.

We also enable video customers to watch certain programming on personal devices connected to the
Internet connection, whether in or outside their home, which we refer to as TV Everywhere. Our video customers currently have access to online content for up to 76 channels, and we plan to further expand our TV Everywhere line-up in 2017. Our video customers that take a set-top with the TiVo guide may also remotely view programming listings and schedule and manage DVR recordings remotely
through our mobile apps and online portal.

HSD

We offer high-speed Internet access to suit the requirements of our HSD customers, with minimum downstream speeds of 60 megabits per second
(Mbps), and packages available that provide downstream speeds up to 200 Mbps. Through Project Gigabit, we have installed the necessary equipment to transition substantially all our homes passed to the DOCSIS 3.1 platform, which will
allow us to introduce packages offering speeds of up to 1 Gbps across most of our markets in 2017. We will also deploy community Wi-Fi access points throughout high-traffic commercial and public areas in our
markets, which we believe will add additional value for our HSD customers.

Our residential HSD customers are charged a monthly fee that
varies depending on the speeds and usage allowance associated with their level of HSD service. Our residential HSD service requires a modem, which most of our customers lease from us for a monthly fee. We also offer wireless gateways that combine a
modem with a wireless router and phone adapter for an additional monthly fee, which ensures the performance of multiple personal devices used at the same time.

Phone

Our
residential phone customers enjoy unlimited nationwide calling and other popular features, including Caller ID, call waiting, call forwarding, three-way calling and, for those who also take our video service,
the ability to receive Caller ID information on the customers television. Residential phone customers are charged a monthly fee, with voicemail services, directory assistance and international calling plans made available for an additional
fee. Our residential phone service requires equipment that is either included in the wireless gateway taken by many customers that take both HSD and phone service, or is typically leased by our customers for a monthly fee.

Business Services

Mediacom Business
provides SMB customers video, HSD and phone services similar to those offered to our residential customers, along with a multi-line phone service, music services and other features. We also furnish custom fiber solutions, with transmission speeds up
to 10 Gbps, for medium- and large-sized businesses and institutions, with IP-enabled trunk-based voice services, and point-to-point, multi-point wide area, and local area network solution. We also supply high-capacity fiber transport and dedicated Internet access to national and regional carriers to support cell tower
backhaul, Ethernet and regional transport. Our initiation of Project Open Road will extend our network to tens of thousands of new commercial locations that contain multiple businesses, in an effort to sustain or accelerate our rate of
growth in business services revenues.

Advertising

We sell advertising and production services to local, regional and national customers under our OnMedia brand. As part of the programming
agreements with national cable networks, we generally receive an allocation of scheduled advertising time, typically two minutes per hour, and insert commercials during this allotted time. Our local sales team generally sells the placement of
advertising and, in certain markets, we have entered into agreements with other cable operators in the same DMA where we sell advertising on behalf of these other operators, or vice versa, facilitating customers ability to purchase local
advertising in multiple markets. We also sell digital ad placement and other media services as an extension of our advertising business.

Marketing and
Sales

We employ a wide range of sales channels to reach current and potential customers, including outbound telemarketing, direct
mail, in-bound customer care centers, retail locations, door-to-door field technician sales, and an e-commerce site. Customers are directed to our inbound call centers or website through various forms of advertising, including television advertising on our own cable systems. Mediacom Business has a dedicated sales
force and outbound telemarketing, and we have several relationships with third-party agents who sell our services. Xtream is our marketing brand for bundled packages that include video with DVR service and
set-tops with the TiVo guide, HSD with a wireless gateway, and phone service. We believe the simplified pricing and value proposition of our Xtream bundles has positively influenced the markets
perception of our products and services, and has driven higher levels of sales activity.

We continue to make investments that improve the reliability and quality of our services to enhance our customers experience. Our field
operations team focuses on providing a quality experience during installation and service calls, with the goal of resolving any technical issues on the first attempt. We offer 30 minute arrival windows and evening and weekend availability for
installation and service calls to provide more convenient scheduling for our customers. Field activity is scheduled and routed seamlessly with remote dispatching and workflow management and GPS systems that facilitate
on-time arrival for customer appointments. Our technicians are equipped with diagnostic and monitoring tools that determine the quality of service at the customers home in real-time.

Our customer care group has multiple contact centers with dedicated customer service, sales, and technical support representatives available
at all times, and our virtual contact center allows us to manage resources efficiently and effectively function as a single, unified call center. Our website and mobile applications allow customers to manage their billing account, utilize self-help
tools and schedule appointments. Customers who are seeking to speak to an agent for further assistance may use the call back feature where our technical staff will call the customer when available, eliminating the need for excessive wait
times. We maintain a strong presence on many social networking websites and message boards, including Facebook and Twitter, allowing us the ability to be more proactive in customer service, along with providing customers another point of contact.

Technology

Our services are
delivered through a fiber-rich, technologically-advanced, route-diverse network that consists of a national backbone; large-scale, centralized platforms; regional networks and headends; neighborhood nodes; and last-mile connectivity to customer
homes or businesses. We utilize an IP ring architecture that minimizes service outages through its redundant design, and our network operations center supports and continuously monitors our network. We believe our network infrastructure provides
several advantages over most of our competitors, including significantly more bandwidth capacity, greater reliability and higher quality of service.

Our national backbone is connected to leading carriers, with a presence in several major carrier hotels, and allows us to introduce new
services across all our markets and realize greater economic efficiencies and scale. Our national backbone connects centralized platforms that control video content delivery, HSD and phone services, provisioning, customer care and email, and
provides access to several aggregation and exchange points in our regional networks to ensure network redundancy and enhanced quality of service.

The last-mile connectivity is delivered through our HFC network, transporting content via laser-fed
fiber-optic cable by regional networks and headends to local nodes, and by coaxial cable from these nodes to our customers. We have installed back-up power supplies that are intended to allow our services to
continue to be available in the event of a commercial power outage. For certain business customers that have high-capacity requirements, we extend fiber-optic cable from the node site directly to the customers premise.

HSD customers have consumed rapidly increasing amounts of bandwidth over the last several years, largely driven by increased usage of OTT
video, and we expect this trend to continue. To provide additional network capacity to facilitate meaningful bandwidth consumption increases, we have deployed multiple tools to recapture bandwidth and optimize our network to allow for faster HSD
speeds and greater levels of capacity. In substantially all of our markets, we have converted video service to an all-digital delivery platform, freeing up spectrum that was previously used to
deliver analog video signals that require more capacity. We have installed the necessary equipment to transition to the DOCSIS 3.1 platform in substantially all of our markets, which allows us to use our existing network capacity in a more efficient
manner. These bandwidth reclamation and optimization efforts have enabled continuing increases in the speeds and usage allowances in our HSD service packages, and we will further increase our maximum speeds to 1 Gbps in many of our markets in
2017.

Community Relations

We are
dedicated to fostering strong relations with the communities we serve and believe our local involvement strengthens the awareness and favorable perception of our brand. We support local charities and community causes with scholarships, events and
campaigns to raise funds and supplies for persons in need, and in-kind donations that include production services and free airtime on cable networks. As of December 31, 2016, we provided free video
service to over 1,700 schools and free HSD service to over 200 schools, and also provided free video service to over 1,600 government buildings, libraries and
not-for-profit hospitals, nearly 200 of which also receive free HSD service.

As of December 31, 2016, we served 501 communities under non-exclusive franchises granted to us by
local or state governmental authorities. Many of the provisions of local franchises are subject to federal regulation under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Cable Act). Our franchises typically impose numerous conditions,
including requirements around construction of the cable network in certain of the franchise areas; customer service requirements; the broad categories of programming required; the provision of free service to schools and other public institutions;
and the provision and funding of public access channels. Many of the provisions of local franchises are subject to a fee based on gross revenues of specified cable services that we typically pass through directly to the
customer. The Cable Act prohibits such franchise fees from exceeding 5%.

We believe that we have satisfactory relationships with our
franchising communities, and have never had a franchise revoked, or had a community refuse to consent to a franchise transfer to us. The Cable Act provides comprehensive renewal procedures, which require that an incumbent franchisees renewal
application be assessed on its own merits and not as part of a comparative process with competing applications. For more information around our franchises, see Legislation and Regulation  State and Local Regulation  Franchise
Matters.

Sources of Supply

Programming

The
programming content carried by our cable systems is generally obtained pursuant to fixed-term contracts with suppliers whose compensation is typically based on a fixed monthly fee per video customer, subject to contractual escalations. Most of our
contracts are entered into directly with the programmers, but we also secure content through a programming cooperative in certain cases where we receive more favorable pricing or terms than are available to us independently. In general, we attempt
to secure longer-term programming contracts, ranging from three to eight years. We also have various retransmission consent agreements that permit us to retransmit the signals of local broadcast television stations. Under FCC rules, local broadcast
stations must elect, on a three-year cycle, either must-carry rights or retransmission consent, where we are not allowed to carry the stations signals without its permission. Retransmission consent is generally
conditioned upon our payment of cash fees and/or our carriage of one or more of their affiliated stations or programming networks.

Programming expenses have historically been our largest single expense item, and these costs have historically increased substantially more
than the inflation rate on a per-unit basis, particularly for sports programming and retransmission consent. Consolidation among media companies and independent broadcast station groups has been significant
over the past several years, and may further continue. As a result of such consolidation, many popular cable networks are owned by large media conglomerates, and many local broadcast stations are owned by large independent television broadcast
groups that own, control or represent a significant number of local broadcast stations across the country and, in some cases, multiple stations in the same market.

Moreover, many of those powerful owners of programming require us to purchase their content in bundles and dictate how we offer them to our
customers. Consequently, we have little or no ability to individually or selectively negotiate for networks or broadcast stations, to forego purchasing networks or stations that generate low customer interest, to offer sports programming services,
such as ESPN and regional sports networks, on one or more separate tiers, or to offer networks or stations on an a la carte basis to give our customers more choice and potentially lower their costs. In many instances, such programmers have created
additional networks and migrated popular programming, particularly sports programming, to these new networks, which has contributed to the increases in our programming costs. Additionally, we believe certain programmers may also demand higher fees
from us in an effort to partially offset declines in their advertising revenue as more advertisers allocate a greater portion of their spending to Internet advertising. All of these practices increase our programming expense, and while such growth
in programming expenses can be offset, in whole or in part, by rate increases to our video customers, our video gross margins will continue to decline if they cannot be fully offset.

HSD Service

We
deliver HSD service through route-diverse fiber networks that are owned by us or leased from third parties and through backbone networks that are operated by third parties. We pay fees for leased circuits based on the amount of capacity and for
Internet connectivity based on the amount of HSD traffic over the providers network.

Phone Service

Our phone service is delivered through a Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) platform over a route-diverse infrastructure. We
source certain services from outside parties to support our phone service, the most significant of which are long-distance services from a number of Tier 1 carriers, E911 database management, and leased circuits from incumbent local exchange
carriers (ILECs).

We purchase set-tops from a limited number of suppliers, principally
Arris Group Inc., and lease these devices to customers on a monthly basis. We provide our customers with set-top program guides from TiVo Inc. and Rovi Corporation. We mainly purchase cable modems from Hitron
Technologies and Technicolor SA, and routers, switches and other network equipment from Cisco Systems, Casa Technology Systems and Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.

Competition

We face competition for
residential and business customers from a wide range of communication, entertainment and information services. Our residential video, HSD and phone services have historically faced, and continue to face, intense competition from existing providers
in the areas of price, product offerings and service reliability. Rapid technological advances and changes in consumer behavior and demands have led to an increasing number of companies that offer new products and services that compete with ours,
including OTT video and wireless Internet and phone services. Our business services generally compete with existing providers who may have a stronger foothold and customer penetration in our markets, and we continue to face a number of challengers
for advertising sales.

Many of our current and potential future competitors have strong brand name recognition and significant financial
resources, which may allow them to react to technological developments or changes in consumer behavior quicker than us. Recent consolidation has resulted in certain competitors becoming larger and offering additional services. AT&Ts
acquisition of DirecTV in 2015 enhanced their ability to offer bundled wireline and wireless services, and facilitated their recent launch of DirecTV Now, an OTT video service that competes with ours. In 2016, AT&T announced a
proposed merger with Time Warner Inc. which, if completed, would integrate a variety of video content with its established distribution platforms. Further consolidation may occur in the future, which may further pressure our competitive position.

Video

Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) Providers

We face our most significant competition for video customers from DBS providers, principally DirecTV, which is owned by AT&T, and DISH
Network, whom offer satellite-delivered video packages and collectively have over 33 million video customers throughout the U.S., based on publicly filed information. These DBS providers offer similar video packages to ours, including certain
features we may not provide including ad-skipping functionality and exclusive content such as DirecTVs agreement with the National Football League. DBS providers also have certain other advantages over
us, including a national brand and marketing platform, and greater operational efficiencies resulting from their ability to avoid certain expenses which we incur, principally franchise fees and property taxes. We believe aggressive promotional
pricing and advanced customer equipment offered by these DBS providers have contributed to our historical video customer losses.

Phone
Companies

Certain phone companies have built fiber-based networks that allow them to offer video service, which is then bundled with
Internet, phone and, in some cases, wireless, services. As of December 31, 2016, approximately 5% and 4% of our homes passed faced wireline video competition from AT&T U-Verse and CenturyLink Prism,
respectively, based on internal estimates. The video services offered by these phone companies are substantially similar to ours. In markets where phone companies do not offer wireline video service, they have typically bundled their Internet and/or
phone services with a DBS video service.

Other Overbuilders

We compete with other operators known as overbuilders that operate under non-exclusive
franchises granted by local authorities and offer video service to markets representing approximately 24% (excluding the phone companies noted above) of our homes passed. The level of competition provided by these overbuilders varies, depending on
the quality of their network and services offered, but they generally market bundled packages similar to ours. Some of these competitors, including municipally-owned entities, may be granted franchises on more favorable terms than ours, or enjoy
other advantages, such as exemptions from property taxes or regulatory requirements, and pole rental charges, to which we are subject. We believe there has been limited expansion of such entities in our markets in the past several years.

Our video service faces increasing competition from a variety of OTT video providers that offer streaming and downloading of video content over
the Internet, often available for a monthly subscription priced meaningfully lower than our video service, or free of charge. These services have become increasingly accessible as technological advances have facilitated the ability of consumers to
watch OTT video on their television and a variety of platforms and devices. The quality and amount of content offered by these providers continues to improve, and some OTT video services, including Netflix, Hulu and Amazon Prime Video have also
recently introduced high-quality original content that is exclusive to their respective service. OTT video packages have also been recently made available, or will soon become available including DISHs SlingTV, DirecTV Now, YouTube TV and Hulu
that replicate the linear video experience and provide additional competition to our video service. Additionally, certain content providers, including HBO, Showtime and CBS, have begun selling their programming direct to consumers over the Internet,
bypassing distribution by a traditional video provider and additional content providers have announced intentions to do so in 2017 and beyond.

If OTT video providers continue to add popular content, including services that offer linear video, substitution of our video services may
accelerate. Additionally, because OTT video is very popular with younger demographics, there may be an increasing substitution of traditional video if newly formed households were more likely to choose one or several OTT video services as their only
video provider. However, we believe most OTT video services are used to supplement traditional video, and we have facilitated their usage by integrating many third-party video services on our next-generation
set-top. While increasing use of OTT video services may lead to lower demand for our VOD and, to a lesser extent, video service in general, we expect the associated bandwidth requirements will result in
greater HSD customer growth and retention given our competitive position.

Other

We also face competition for our video service from
over-the-air broadcast television, of which the extent of such competition for our video service is dependent on the quality and quantity of broadcast signals available
through an off-air antenna.

HSD

Phone Companies

Our HSD
service faces its most significant competition from local phone companies, including CenturyLink, AT&T and Windstream, that generally offer digital subscriber line (DSL) Internet service, which is limited by technical constraints to
maximum speeds considerably slower than ours. These phone companies generally market their DSL service at a lower price than our HSD service, but in certain markets where they have upgraded portions of their network to allow for faster speeds, their
higher-speed DSL tiers were typically available at similar or higher prices than ours.

Some phone companies have upgraded portions of
their network to a fiber-to-the-node (FTTN) system that allows for Internet speeds comparable to our 60 Mbps service
or fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) systems, which are capable of providing Internet speeds as fast as our highest speeds.
AT&T and CenturyLink have upgraded their networks to FTTN delivery systems in several of our markets, and AT&T has committed to deploying FTTH service to 12.5 million nation-wide locations within four years of their 2016 acquisition of
DirecTV. We do not compete with FTTH services in a meaningful number of our markets. We generally believe our markets have been a lower priority for these phone companies, given the higher costs associated with building out such fiber networks in
lower density markets such as ours, as compared to larger metropolitan markets. However, we may face greater competition for HSD customers if these companies were to continue, or accelerate, the deployment of fiber in markets which we compete.

Wireless Providers

We
also face competition from wireless providers such as AT&T, Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile and Sprint that offer third and fourth generation, or 3G and 4G, wireless Internet service.
While certain households or individuals with minimal bandwidth requirements may fully substitute their wireline Internet service for a wireless one, we do not believe that wireless Internet service offers a full replacement to our HSD service given
higher data usage costs, slower speeds and lower reliability. However, the level of competition provided by wireless Internet services may increase in the future with the deployment of fifth generation, or 5G technology and the recent
introduction of packages with unlimited bandwidth consumption.

Other

Our HSD service also faces limited competition from other providers, including many of the overbuilders noted above, and certain municipalities
and commercial entities that have built fiber networks and offer Internet service that competes with ours. In a limited

number of markets outside our service area, Google has launched a FTTH service, and has announced plans to expand to additional markets. Some local governments in our footprint are considering or
actively pursuing the subsidized build out of additional fiber and/or Wi-Fi networks. Our HSD service also faces competition from certain commercial venues, such as retail shopping areas, restaurants and
airports that offer Wi-Fi Internet service, sometimes free of charge. If any of these providers were to significantly expand services in our markets, we would face additional competitive pressures.

Phone

Our phone
service faces its most significant competition from the phone companies noted above that offer wireline phone service that is substantially similar to ours and, increasingly, from the wireless providers noted above. As households continue to utilize
cell phones as their only phone service, the number of customers taking a wireline phone service has meaningfully declined, a trend we believe will continue.

Our phone service also competes with providers of IP-based phone services such as Vonage, Skype and
magicJack, and from other forms of communication such as text and video messaging.

Business Services

Our business services primarily compete for SMB customers with local phone companies, many of which have had a historical advantage given
long-term relationships with such customers, a nation-wide footprint that allows them to more effectively serve multiple locations, and existing networks built in certain commercial areas that we do not currently serve. However, in recent years, we
have aggressively marketed our business services and expanded our network into additional commercial areas, which have led to significant customer and revenue increases associated with business services, which we expect to continue.

Our cell tower backhaul and enterprise-level services also face competition from these local phone companies as well as other carriers,
including metro and regional fiber-based carriers.

Advertising

We compete for the sale of advertising against a wide variety of media outlets, including local broadcast stations, national broadcast
networks, national and regional programming networks, local radio broadcast stations, local and regional newspapers, magazines and Internet sites. Competition has increased and will likely continue to increase as digital and other new formats for
advertising seek to attract the same advertisers.

Other Competition

We also face competition for all of our services with all other sources of leisure, news, information and entertainment, including movies,
sporting or other live events, radio broadcasts, home video services, console games, print media and the Internet. There can be no assurance that these or other existing, proposed, or as yet undeveloped technologies will not become dominant in the
future and render our products and services less profitable or even obsolete.

Employees

As of December 31, 2016, we had 2,445 employees. None of our employees are organized under, or covered by, a collective bargaining
agreement. We consider our relations with our employees to be satisfactory.

Federal,
state and local laws regulate the development and operation of cable systems and, to varying degrees, the services we offer. Significant legal requirements imposed on us because of our status as a cable operator, or by virtue of the services we
offer, are described below.

Many of our operations are regulated to a varying degree under different provisions of federal law,
principally Title I (information services), Title II (telecommunications services) and Title VI (cable services) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Communications Act).

Recent Significant FCC Activity

HSD Regulatory Reclassification and Network Neutrality

In 2015, the FCC adopted its Open Internet Order changing the historical classification of HSD Services, commonly referred to as broadband
Internet access services (BIAS), from lightly regulated Title I information services to telecommunications services subject to regulation under Title II of the Communications Act. Although the FCC acted to forebear enforcement of many of
Title IIs provisions, the FCC may rescind any or all such forbearance at will. With the Republicans in charge of both houses of Congress and the White House, reports have circulated that legislation may be introduced to undo in whole or in
part the effect of the 2015 Order. We cannot predict if such changes will be adopted or what the impact of those changes may be.

The Open
Internet Order established three bright line rules that restrict blocking of content, throttling of speed and paid prioritization of traffic (giving certain traffic priority in return for consideration). More generally, a provider of
BIAS also cannot unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably disadvantage: (i) consumers ability to select, access or use lawful content, applications, services or devices; or (ii) edge providers ability to make lawful content,
applications, services or devices available to consumers. To determine what conduct is reasonable or unreasonable, the FCC will resolve complaints on a
case-by-case basis. Until complaints are filed and resolved, the scope of permitted conduct is not known and this creates regulatory uncertainty.

The Open Internet Order mandates additional consumer disclosures regarding promotional rates, fees, surcharges and data caps or allowances,
and packet loss measures. Network management practices must continue to be disclosed with the added requirement of disclosure if a network practice is likely to significantly affect an end users use of the service. The Open Internet Order
distinguishes so-called legitimate network management practices from other business practices. Our interconnections with other networks in order to exchange broadband traffic are now subject to FCC
regulation. These arrangements will be regulated on a case-by-case basis if and as complaints are filed. Until complaints against ISPs are filed and resolved, it is
difficult to determine the standards that distinguish permitted from proscribed conduct and, therefore, the potential impact upon our existing interconnection arrangements or future needs.

On October 27, 2016, the FCC adopted new privacy and data security requirements for BIAS providers pursuant to its Title II authority.
These include specific disclosures and the timing of such disclosures, enhanced choice by subscribers over the use of sensitive data and data breach notification requirements. On March 1, 2017, the FCC stayed the effective date of the new rules
to allow time to work with the Federal Trade Commission to create a comprehensive and consistent framework with respect to online privacy. We cannot predict if or when new rules will be issued or what effect they will have, if any, on our business.

We provide HSD services to business customers. On April 28, 2016, the FCC adopted a Tariff Investigation Order and Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking that sought, among other things, to impose price caps on the provision of business data services. In late January 2017, a proposed order was removed from the FCCs list on items on circulation, meaning that it could no
longer be voted upon. It is unclear whether the proposed order will be reinstated, the new FCC Chairman would propose an alternative order or no order would be issued at all.

Preemption of State Restriction of Municipal-Based Broadband Systems

In a limited number of our markets, our products and services face competition from municipally owned electric utilities that have constructed
telecommunications systems. Certain of the states in which we operate have adopted laws that impose conditions upon the conduct of a telecommunications business by local municipalities. For example, some states may require voter approval and
prohibit cross-subsidization of the telecommunications business by electric, gas and water utility customers. In 2015, the FCC adopted a Memorandum Opinion and Order preempting certain state laws imposing restrictions or conditions upon the ability
of municipal utilities in North Carolina and Tennessee to offer or expand broadband service. However, on August 10, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit struck down the FCCs ban and the FCC did not to appeal.

Members of Congress have discussed undertaking a rewrite of the telecommunications laws that is necessary to develop laws that can be applied
on a technology- and platform-neutral basis. Currently, each technology, regardless of whether it offers a similar service, e.g., multichannel video programming, broadband access or phone service, is regulated in a silo subject to a different
regulatory regime. Such treatment often disadvantages one technology compared to others. We cannot predict whether such a rewrite and/or network neutrality legislation to establish a statutory framework to replace the Open Internet Order will occur.
Any changes in regulation that would result from a rewrite could affect all of our products and services, the outcome of which, if any, cannot be predicted.

Privacy and Data Security

How we collect, use, disclose and retain personally identifiable information and other sensitive information about our customers and what we do
in the event of a data security breach is governed by federal and state laws. In addition, many states in which we operate have also enacted customer privacy statutes, including obligations to notify customers when certain customer information is
accessed or believed to have been accessed without authorization. These state provisions are in some cases more restrictive than those in federal law.

The Cable Act imposes a number of restrictions on the manner in which cable operators can collect, disclose and retain data about individual
system customers and requires cable operators to take actions to prevent unauthorized access to such information. The statute also requires that the system operator periodically provide all customers with written information about its policies,
including the types of information collected; the use of such information; the nature, frequency and purpose of any disclosures; the period of retention; the times and places where a customer may have access to such information; the limitations
placed on the cable operator by the Cable Act; and a customers enforcement rights. In the event that a cable operator is found to have violated the customer privacy provisions of the Cable Act, it could be required to pay damages,
attorneys fees and other costs. Certain of these Cable Act requirements have been modified by more recent federal laws. Other federal laws currently impact the circumstances and the manner in which we disclose certain customer information and
future federal legislation may further impact our obligations.

As more fully discussed in the Recent Significant FCC Activity 
HSD Regulatory Reclassification and Network Neutrality section above, our HSD Service has become subject to new requirements, some of which have and others which are scheduled to take effect, regarding the collection, use and disclosure of
certain customer, usage and network information.

In addition to any privacy laws that may apply to our provision of VoIP services, we
must comply with additional privacy provisions contained in the FCCs CPNI regulations related to certain telephone customer records. In addition to employee training programs and other operating and disciplinary procedures, the CPNI rules
require establishment of customer authentication and password protections, limit the means that we may use for such authentication, and provide customer approval prior to certain types of uses or disclosures of CPNI.

Pole Attachment Regulation

The Cable Act requires certain public utilities, including all local telephone companies and electric utilities, except those owned by
municipalities and co-operatives, to provide cable operators and telecommunications carriers with nondiscriminatory access to poles, ducts, conduits and rights-of-way at just and reasonable rates. This right of access is beneficial to us. Federal law also requires the FCC to regulate the rates, terms and conditions imposed by such public utilities for cable
systems use of utility pole and conduit space unless state authorities have demonstrated to the FCC that they adequately regulate pole attachment rates, as is the case in certain states in which we operate. In the absence of state regulation,
the FCC will regulate pole attachment rates, terms and conditions only in response to a formal complaint. The FCC established a rate formula which governs the maximum rate certain utilities may charge for attachments to their poles and conduit by
companies providing telecommunications services, including cable operators.

In 2011, the FCC adopted an Order modifying the pole
attachment rules to promote broadband deployment. Previously, poles subject to the FCC attachment rules used a formula that resulted in lower rates for cable attachments and higher rates for telecommunication services attachments. The FCC had
previously ruled that the provision of Internet services would not, in and of itself, trigger use of this new formula and the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed this decision.

Pursuant to the FCCs 2011 Order, the telecommunications attachment rate formula would yield results that would approximate the
attachment rates for cable television operators. On November 17, 2015, the FCC adopted an Order on Reconsideration that revised the FCCs pole attachment rate formula to lessen the disparity between the cable and telecommunications rates
that arose under certain factual scenarios. As a result, in almost all circumstances the cable and telecommunications rates now approximate each other. Thus, even though it remains unclear whether the reclassification of broadband service as a
telecommunications service pursuant to the Open

Internet Order discussed more fully in Recent Significant FCC Activity  HSD Regulatory Reclassification and Network Neutrality above, will impact our ability to continue to seek
attachment rates computed as a cable operator as opposed to as a telecommunications provider, the practical effect of that distinction has been virtually eliminated. However, to the extent the FCCs action lowers the pole attachment costs of
our competitors, that could adversely impact us.

Universal Service Fund

In recent years, the FCC has adopted a series of reforms to the Universal Service Fund (USF) support mechanism to help to make
broadband available to areas that do not have or would not have broadband service. In addition, the FCC has expanded the types of services that must contribute to the USF. Since 2006, VoIP providers must contribute to the USF, and the FCC has a
pending rulemaking that, if adopted, could impose fees on currently non-assessable services such as broadband Internet access.

Any increased costs resulting from having to contribute to USF, however, would increase our cost of service to consumers and that could
adversely affect our business. We cannot predict how these various changes either may add costs or burdens to our existing VoIP and broadband services or how they may potentially benefit those who provide competing services.

Cable System Operations and Video Services

Federal Regulation

Title VI of the Communications Act, referred to as the Cable Act, establishes the principal federal regulatory framework for our operation of
cable systems and for the provision of our video services. The Cable Act allocates primary responsibility for enforcing the federal policies among the FCC and state and local governmental authorities.

Content Regulations

Must Carry and Retransmission Consent

The FCCs regulations require local commercial television broadcast stations to elect once every three years whether to require a cable
system to carry the primary signal of their stations, subject to certain exceptions, commonly called must-carry, or to negotiate the terms by which the cable system may carry the station on its cable systems, commonly called retransmission consent.
The most recent elections took effect through December 31, 2017. Through January 1, 2020, Congress bars broadcasters from entering into exclusive retransmission consent agreements. Congress also requires all parties to negotiate
retransmission consent agreements in good faith.

The Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act Reauthorization Act
(STELAR) prohibits stations not under common ownership from engaging in joint negotiations with multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) and restricting broadcasters from generally limiting carriage of stations
that are significantly viewed or otherwise entitled to carriage, and eliminating the restriction on removing or repositioning stations during certain periods of time when network ratings are assessed, known as sweeps. Pursuant to STELAR,
in 2015 the FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to review the totality of the circumstances test applied, in part, to determine whether parties have attempted to negotiate retransmission consent in good faith
and whether certain other actions should evidence bad faith. We cannot predict whether the FCC will modify its rules or the impact of any such modifications. If the FCC fails to modify its rules, such action could be seen as an endorsement of
current broadcaster negotiating tactics that often introduce challenges to the negotiation of retransmission consent agreements.

In 2014,
the FCC issued an NPRM revisiting the definition of an MVPD, whether it should be technology-neutral to allow inclusion of certain Internet-delivered video services, the impact of such change on various industry players and consumers, and how to
ensure any change promotes competition and broadband adoption. We cannot predict when, or if, the FCC will implement any new rules or change existing rules or the impact that any new rules or legislation may have on our business. Any new rules or
legislation that would strengthen the relative negotiating position of broadcasters or the competitive position of Internet-delivered video service providers could have an adverse effect on our business.

We carry both must-carry broadcast stations and broadcast stations that have granted retransmission consent. A significant number of local
broadcast stations carried by our cable systems have elected to negotiate for retransmission consent, and we have entered into retransmission consent agreements with substantially all of them. Retransmission consent agreements representing
approximately 37% of our video customers receiving local broadcast stations will expire and require renegotiation prior to January 1, 2018.

Pursuant to FCC regulations, under certain circumstances, broadcasters can bar us from carrying certain network and
syndicated programming. In 2014, the FCC issued a Further NPRM to expand the record on whether it should eliminate the ability of broadcasters to impose such restrictions on us.

Other Content Regulations

On February 18, 2016, the FCC issued an order reapportioning the responsibilities regarding closed captioning quality, between video
programming distributors (VPDs) and video programming owners and producers. Initially, the burden had ultimately been borne by VPDs. Moreover, the FCC also adopted a burden-shifting model for investigation of complaints that can, in
certain instances, shift the investigatory obligations to the owners or producers.

Pursuant to the Twenty-First Century Communications
and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, the FCC has adopted rules that, among other things, impose certain accessibility requirements on navigation devices and digital apparatus that utilize encryption or other forms of conditional access to display
video programming. Such devices must make on-screen text menus and guides for the display or selection of MVPD programming audibly accessible and make video programming accessible to individuals who are blind
or visually impaired. These rules also require MVPDs to not rely solely on voice controls to activate closed captioning, establish customer notification requirements on manufacturers to publicize the availability of audible on-screen program guides, established information and documentation that must be made available to persons with disabilities and specified customer service training requirement topics for MVPDs.

Use of Our Cable Systems by the Government and Unrelated Third Parties

The Cable Act allows local franchising authorities and unrelated third parties to obtain access to a portion of our cable systems channel
capacity for their own use through channels set aside for PEG programming and requires most cable operators to designate a significant portion of its activated channel capacity for commercial leased access by third parties to provide programming
that may compete with services offered by the cable operator.

Cable Equipment

The Cable Act and FCC regulations gave consumers the right to purchase set-top converters from third
parties as long as the equipment does not harm the network, does not interfere with services purchased by other customers and is not used to receive unauthorized services. In 2016, the FCC adopted an NPRM and Memorandum Opinion and Order that
removed the ban on the integration of security and non-security function in set-tops and proposed new rules aimed at increasing the availability of navigation devices or
apps that have the functional equivalency of set-tops from providers unaffiliated with an MVPD. To accomplish this, the FCC proposed rules requiring MVPDs to split their signal into three core information
streams: (i) Service discovery: information about what programming is available to the consumer, such as the channel listing and video-on-demand lineup, and
what is on those channels; (ii) Entitlements: information about what a device is allowed to do with content, such as recording; and (iii) Content delivery: the video programming itself. The FCC declined to establish
standards, instead recommending that they be established by an unnamed independent open standards body. It remains unclear whether these rules, if adopted, would interfere with contractual security requirements of programming networks, impair
subscriber privacy, impair or duplicate an MVPDs ability to capture and use viewing information or otherwise adversely impact the subscriber experience. In late January 2017, a proposed order was removed from the FCCs list of items on
circulation, meaning that it could no longer be voted upon. It is unclear whether the proposed order will be reinstated, the new FCC Chairman would propose an alternative order or no order would be issued at all. Should these or similar rules
ultimately be enacted, we cannot predict what reengineering of our systems would be required, if any, or the cost of implementing and providing such split streams of information. We also cannot predict whether a subscribers use of such
alternative device or app would impair our accessibility to or the value of viewing information.

Multiple Dwelling Unit Building
Wiring

The FCC has adopted cable inside wiring rules to provide a more specific procedure for the disposition of residential home
wiring and internal building wiring that belongs to an incumbent cable operator that is forced by the building owner to terminate its cable services in a building with multiple dwelling units. The FCC has issued rules voiding existing, and
prohibiting future, exclusive service contracts for services to multiple dwelling unit or other residential developments, however, the FCC has affirmed the permissibility of bulk rate agreements and exclusive marketing agreements. Our inability to
secure such express rights in the future may adversely affect our business to customers residing in multiple dwelling unit buildings and certain other residential developments.

Our cable systems typically include in their channel line-ups local and distant television and radio
broadcast signals, which are protected by the copyright laws. We generally do not obtain a license to use this programming directly from the owners of the copyrights associated with this programming, but instead comply with an alternative federal
compulsory copyright licensing process. In exchange for filing certain reports and contributing a percentage of our revenues to a federal copyright royalty pool, we obtain blanket permission to retransmit the copyrighted material carried on these
broadcast signals. The nature and amount of future copyright payments for broadcast signal carriage cannot be predicted at this time.

DBS
providers, to become more competitive with cable operators, operate under a similar statutory compulsory license that unlike that of cable operators, has a fixed term. In 2014, Congress extended the satellite compulsory license through 2019. As part
of that legislation, Congress required the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct another study regarding carriage and copyright issues relating to broadcast programming and the impact of the current regulatory
regime on consumers. Pursuant to an earlier mandate, in 2011, GAO issued a report to Congress that found that the impact of a phase-out of the compulsory copyright licenses would have an uncertain impact on
the market and regulatory environment. In part, the scheme (i.e., direct licensing, collective licensing or sublicensing) that would replace the compulsory licenses would impact the outcome. Additionally, in 2008 and 2011 the Copyright Office issued
reports to Congress recommending phasing out the distant signal compulsory license. We cannot predict whether Congress will eliminate the cable compulsory license, or what scheme would replace it, if any; however, any loss of the current compulsory
license could increase our costs.

State and Local Regulation

Franchise Matters

Our cable systems use local streets and rights-of-way.
Consequently, we must comply with state and local regulation, which is typically imposed through the franchising process. We have non-exclusive franchises granted by municipal, state or other local government
entities for virtually every community in which we operate that authorize us to construct, operate and maintain our cable systems. Our franchises generally are granted for fixed terms and in many cases are terminable if we fail to comply with
material provisions. The terms and conditions of our franchises vary materially from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Each franchise granted by a municipal or local governmental entity generally contains provisions governing:



franchise fees;



franchise term;



system construction and maintenance obligations;



system channel capacity;



design and technical performance;



customer service standards;



sale or transfer of the franchise; and



territory of the franchise.

Although franchising matters have traditionally been regulated at the local level through a franchise agreement and/or a local ordinance, many
states now allow or require cable service providers to bypass the local process and obtain franchise agreements or equivalent authorizations directly from state government. Many of the states in which we operate, including Illinois, Iowa, Missouri
and Wisconsin make state-issued franchises available, which typically contain less restrictive provisions than those issued by municipal or other local government entities. State-issued franchises in many states generally allow local telephone
companies or others to deliver services in competition with our cable service without obtaining equivalent local franchises. In states where available, we are generally able to obtain state-issued franchises upon expiration of our existing
franchises. Our business may be adversely affected to the extent that our competitors are able to operate under franchises that are more favorable than our existing local franchises. While most franchising matters are dealt with at the state and/or
local level, the Cable Act provides oversight and guidelines to govern our relationship with local franchising authorities whether they are at the state, county or municipal level.

We regularly receive notices of claimed infringements by our HSD service users. The owners of copyrights have been active in seeking to prevent
use of the Internet to violate their rights. In many cases, their claims of infringement are based on the acts of customers of an Internet service provider  for example, a customers use of an Internet service or the resources it provides
to post, download or disseminate copyrighted music, movies, software or other content without the consent of the copyright owner or to seek to profit from the use of the goodwill associated with another persons trademark. In some cases,
copyright and trademark owners have sought to recover damages from the Internet service provider, as well as or instead of the customer. The law relating to the potential liability of Internet service providers in these circumstances is unsettled.
In 1996, Congress adopted the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which is intended to grant ISPs protection against certain claims of copyright infringement resulting from the actions of customers, provided that the ISP complies with certain
requirements.

International Law

Our HSD service enables individuals to access the Internet and to exchange information, generate content, conduct business and engage in
various online activities on an international basis. The law relating to the liability of providers of these online services for activities of their users is currently unsettled both within the United States and abroad. Potentially, third parties
could seek to hold us liable for the actions and omissions of our HSD customers, such as defamation, negligence, copyright or trademark infringement, fraud or other theories based on the nature and content of information that our customers use our
service to post, download or distribute. We also could be subject to similar claims based on the content of other websites to which we provide links or third-party products, services or content that we may offer through our Internet service. Due to
the global nature of the Web, it is possible that the governments of other states and foreign countries might attempt to regulate its transmissions or prosecute us for violations of their laws.

State and Local Regulation and Competition

Our HSD services provided over our cable systems have not generally subject to regulation by state or local jurisdictions. We cannot predict
whether or not our HSD services will become subject to increased state regulation as a result of the Open Internet Order as more fully discussed in the Recent Significant FCC Activity  HSD Regulatory Reclassification and Network
Neutrality section, above, or if they are, the impact that such regulation would have on our business.

Voice-over-Internet
Protocol Phone Service

Federal Law

The 1996 amendments to the Cable Act created a more favorable regulatory environment for cable operators to enter the phone business. Most
major cable operators now offer voice-over-Internet protocol (VoIP) phone service as a competitive alternative to traditional circuit-switched telephone service. Various states, including states where we operate, considered or attempted
differing regulatory treatment, ranging from minimal or no regulation to heavily-regulated common carrier status. As part of the proceeding to determine any appropriate regulatory obligations for VoIP phone service, the FCC decided that alternative
voice technologies, like certain types of VoIP phone service, should be regulated only at the federal level, rather than by individual states. Many implementation details remain unresolved, and there are substantial regulatory changes being
considered that could either benefit or harm VoIP phone service as a business operation.

Federal Regulatory Obligations

The FCC has applied some traditional landline telephone provider regulations to VoIP services. In addition to certain USF obligations as
discussed in Recent Significant FCC Activity  HSD Regulatory Reclassification and Network Neutrality section, above, the FCC also has extended other regulations and reporting requirements to VoIP providers, including E-911, CPNI, local number portability, disability access, Form 477 (subscriber information) reporting obligations, international service revenue reporting and outage reporting. In 2010, the FCC issued an NOI and an
NPRM that would transition high-cost program funds from analog phone service to the provision of broadband services.

Although our entities that provide VoIP phone service services are certificated as competitive local exchange carriers in most of the states in
which they operate, they generally provide few, if any, services in that capacity. Rather, we provide VoIP services that are not generally subject to regulation by state or local jurisdictions. The FCC has preempted some state commission regulation
of VoIP services, but has stated that its preemption does not extend to state consumer protection requirements. Some states continue to attempt to impose obligations on VoIP service providers, including state universal service fund payment
obligations.

We face intense competition that could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We face significant competition for our products and services from a growing number of competitors that offer a wide range of
communication, entertainment and information services. Many of our competitors have, compared to us, greater financial resources, more favorable brand recognition, fewer regulatory burdens and long-standing relationships with regulatory authorities
and customers. Technological advances and changes in consumer behavior and demands have led to an increasing number of companies that offer new products and services that compete with ours, including over-the-top (OTT) video, and wireless Internet and phone services.

Phone companies, including CenturyLink, AT&T and Windstream, that primarily offer DSL Internet service
that is typically limited to speeds considerably slower than ours. These phone companies have also upgraded limited portions of their networks to a FTTN or FTTH delivery system that allows for speeds comparable to our HSD service;



Wireless providers, including AT&T, Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile and
Sprint, that offer 3G and 4G wireless Internet service that may fully suffice for certain consumers with lower bandwidth requirements, and may offer greater levels of competition in the future with the deployment of
5G technology and packages with unlimited bandwidth consumption; and



Other providers of Internet access, including other overbuilders, municipalities and commercial entities that
have built, or are considering building, fiber and/or Wi-Fi networks that may compete with our HSD service;

Other services we provide also face significant competition:



Our phone service primarily competes with the phone companies noted above that offer substantially similar
services to ours throughout our footprint, with the wireless providers that serve to deliver a form of wireline substitution, and with providers of IP-based phone services and other forms of
communication including text and video messaging;



We generally compete for business services customers with phone companies and, for our cell tower backhaul and
enterprise level services, with other competitors, including metro and regional fiber-based carriers;



We compete for advertising sales with a wide variety of media outlets, which will likely remain increasingly
competitive as digital and other new formats of advertising seek to attract the same advertisers.

Although we have
generally eliminated or reduced tactical discounts for customers that do not take bundled services, in order to attract new customers and maintain our existing customer base, we continue to make certain promotional offers that include short-term
discounted service or equipment rates, which may result in lower revenues and greater marketing expenses. Customers who take these discounted bundled services may not remain customers following the end of the promotional period, which could
adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Continued increases in video programming expenses may drive
the pricing of our video services to levels that customers deem unaffordable, which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Video programming expenses have historically been, and we expect will continue to be, our largest single expense item and, in recent years,
have reflected substantial per-unit percentage increases. The rate of increase in such expenses has been well in excess of the inflation rate and increase in U.S. wages, primarily caused by higher per unit
rates for national and regional sports and other popular cable networks and rapidly rising retransmission consent fees imposed by local broadcast stations.

We believe these expenses will continue to grow at a significant rate because of the demands of
large media conglomerates or other owners of most of the popular cable networks and major market local broadcast stations, and large independent television broadcast groups, who own, control or otherwise represent a significant number of local
broadcast stations across the country and, in some cases, own or control multiple stations in the same market. Consolidation among these independent broadcast station groups has been significant over the past several years, and given recent proposed
and completed transactions in the broadcast marketplace, the pace of consolidation has accelerated. As a result, the independent broadcast groups have become much larger based on the number of stations that they own in our markets. This will
strengthen their position by allowing them to negotiate on behalf of a larger amount of local stations at one time.

Moreover, many of
those powerful owners of programming require us to purchase their content in bundles and dictate how we offer them to our video customers, and impose economic penalties if we fail to comply. Consequently, we have little or no ability to individually
or selectively negotiate for networks or local broadcast stations, to forego purchasing networks or local broadcast stations that generate low subscriber interest, to offer sports programming services, such as ESPN and regional sports networks, on
one or more separate tiers, or to offer networks or stations on an a la carte basis to give our customers more choice and potentially lower their costs. In many instances, programmers have created additional networks and migrated popular
programming, particularly sports programming, to these new networks that contributed to the increases in our programming costs. Additionally, we believe certain programmers may also demand higher fees from us in an effort to partially offset
declines in their advertising revenue as more advertisers allocate a greater portion of their spending to Internet advertising. These practices, along with costs associated with offering the same programming on additional outlets including online
and VOD platforms, increase our programming expense. Because of the leverage these large programming companies have over us, we also are obligated to carry additional programming that we would otherwise not offer, which increases our programming
expense and lowers our capacity to introduce other new products and services.

If we are unable to successfully negotiate new agreements
with these programmers before our current agreements expire, the programmers could require us to cease carrying their signals, possibly for an indefinite period, which may result in a loss of video customers and advertising revenue. On certain
occasions in the past, negotiations have led to disputes with programmers that have resulted in temporary periods where we were not carrying a particular broadcast network or programming service or services, which increases the risk of customer
dissatisfaction and the loss of customers. Because of the leverage these large programming companies have over us, we also may be obligated to carry additional programming that we would otherwise not offer, which may increase our programming
expenses and lower our capacity to introduce other new products or services. We may also selectively choose not to renew our agreements with certain content providers if we believe it is uneconomical to do so, which could result in a loss of video
customers and advertising revenues. In addition, if our HSD customers are unable to access desirable content online because content providers block or limit access by our customers if we do not carry their video programming, we may have difficulty
retaining certain HSD customers.

While we attempt to offset such growth in programming expenses by customer rate increases, including the
direct pass-through of increases in retransmission consent and regional sports network fees, our video gross margins will likely continue to decline given the outsized increases to our programming costs we expect in the future. If increases in our
programming costs were to drive the pricing of our video services to levels that are deemed unaffordable, our customers may no longer purchase our video services and instead rely on
over-the-air viewing or use an OTT video service, which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Most of our revenues are sourced from consumers whose spending behavior is impacted by prevailing economic conditions. Weak job and business
creation, occupied housing levels, personal income growth and consumer confidence can adversely impact demand for our services, and may cause increased cancellations by our customers or lead to unfavorable changes in the mix of products taken. The
expanded availability of free or lower cost services that may compete with ours, including OTT video and wireless Internet available in certain commercial or public locations, may further pressure our customer retention. Weak economic conditions
also may decrease advertising demand and negatively impact our advertising revenues.

Because our video service is an established and
highly penetrated business, our ability to gain new video customers depends, in part, on growth in occupied housing in our service areas, which is influenced by both local and national economic conditions. If the number of occupied homes in our
service areas were to decline or not grow at all, our ability to attract and retain new video customers may be negatively impacted, and could adversely impact our business, financial condition and results of operations.

An acceleration in bandwidth consumption by HSD customers greater than
current expectations could require unplanned network investments and meaningfully increase our capital expenditures.

The level of
bandwidth consumption by our HSD customers has grown at sizeable rates for the past several years as usage of many Internet-based services, particularly OTT video, has rapidly increased. If bandwidth consumption were to accelerate greater than
current expectations, we may need to make unplanned network investments and meaningfully increase our capital expenditures to expand the bandwidth capacity of our systems and ensure the quality of service provided to our HSD customers. Our ability
to develop, implement and refine business models that respond to changing consumer bandwidth usage and demands efficiently could be restricted by regulatory and legislative efforts to impose so-called
net neutrality requirements on Internet providers. See Business  Legislation and Regulation General  Recent Significant FCC Activity.

We face risks as we attempt to continue to grow our business services customer base and associated revenues.

Business services customers, and associated revenues, have made increasing contributions to our results of operations in the last
several years, and we may encounter challenges as we attempt to further expand the delivery of HSD and phone to small- and medium-sized businesses, and data networking and fiber connectivity to medium- and large-sized businesses and wireless carriers cellular towers. We expect to continue to commit significant investments on technology, equipment and personnel focused on our business services, including the 2016
introduction of Project Open Road where we plan to extend our network to numerous locations that contain multiple potential business customers. If we are unable to sufficiently build the necessary infrastructure and internal support
functions to scale and expand our customer base, the potential growth of business services would be limited. In many cases, business service customers have service level agreements that require us to provide higher standards of service and
reliability. If we are unable to meet these service level requirements, or more broadly, the expectations of SMB and enterprise customers, or we fail to properly scale and support these activities, our results of operations may be adversely
affected.

We may not realize the expected benefits of the major initiatives under MCCs Capital Plan

We believe the major initiatives under MCCs Capital Plan will improve our competitive position and provide additional
opportunities to grow our customer base and associated revenues than we would have experienced otherwise. If we were to face greater levels of competition that impaired our ability to gain incremental market share or anticipated revenues, or higher
than expected capital expenditures as we deploy such initiatives, we may not fully realize the expected benefits under MCCs Capital Plan.

If we are unable to keep pace with rapid technological developments and respond effectively to changes in consumer
behavior and demand, our business, financial condition and results of operations may be adversely affected.

We operate in a
rapidly changing environment and our success depends, in part, on our ability to maintain or improve our competitive position by acquiring, developing, adopting and exploiting new and existing technologies to add introduce new products and services,
or enhance existing ones. Continued development of newer technologies and services and rapidly evolving consumer preferences will likely continue to drive expansion of the products and services offered by our existing competitors and increase the
number of competitors that we face. Next-generation technology has allowed for linear OTT video services that may suffice as a full replacement for our video service, and may allow wireless Internet providers to offer a service based on
5G technology that may adequately serve as a full replacement for our HSD service. If our competitors were to introduce new or products and services that we do not currently offer, or enhanced versions of existing products and services
that consumers find more compelling than ours, we may be required to deploy greater levels of marketing expenditures and capital investments to maintain our competitive position. We may also recognize lower revenues if such new products and services
require us to offer certain of our existing services at a lower or no cost to our customers. Such changes could cause our business, financial condition and results of operation may be adversely affected.

To keep pace with future developments, we must choose third-party suppliers whose technologies or equipment are more effective, cost-efficient
and attractive to customers than those offered by our competitors. We rely on third-party providers to make available to us new, cost-effective set-tops and programming guides that allow us to offer our video
customers an enhanced user experience. If our vendors were unable to provide set-tops and programming guides that our customers prefer in a timely manner, compared to those offered by our competitors, we may
experience greater video customer losses, and our business, financial condition and results of operation may be adversely affected.

We depend on network and information systems and other technologies to operate our businesses. A disruption or failure
in such networks, systems or technologies resulting from cyber-attacks, natural disasters or other events outside our control have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Because of the importance of network and information systems and other technologies to our business, disruptions or failures caused by
cyber-attacks such as computer hacking, computer viruses, denial of service attacks, worms or other disruptive software could have a devastating impact on our business. Both unsuccessful and successful cyber-attacks on
companies have continued to increase in frequency, scope and potential harm in recent years. Because the techniques used in such attacks have become more sophisticated and change frequently, we may be unable to anticipate these techniques or
implement adequate preventative measures. Such cyber-attacks may result in misappropriation, misuse, leakage, falsification and accidental release or loss of information maintained in our information technology system and networks,
including customer, personnel and vendor data. We could also be subject to employee error or malfeasance, or other disruptions.

As a result of the increasing awareness concerning the importance of safeguarding personal
information and the potential misuse of such information, businesses such as ours that handle a large amount of personal customer data are subject to legislation that has been adopted or is being considered regarding the protection, privacy and
security of personal information and information-related risks. We may also provide certain customer and employee information to third parties in connection with our business. While we obtain assurance such data will be protected by these
third-parties, they are potentially vulnerable to the same threats noted above. If such risks were to materialize, we may be subject to significant costs and expenses, or damage to our reputation and credibility, which could adversely affect our
business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Our network and information systems are also vulnerable to damage resulting
from power outages, natural disasters, terrorist attacks and other material events that are outside our control. Any such event may degrade or disrupt our service, lead to excessive volume at our call centers, and damage our plant, equipment, data
and reputation. While we generally implement redundant systems to allow our network to continue to function in an outage, these measures may be ineffective in certain events. We are unable to predict the impact of such events, and any resulting
customer or revenue losses, or increases in costs and expenses or capital expenditures, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

We are unable to predict the impact of such events, and any resulting customer or revenue losses, or increases in costs and expenses or
capital expenditures, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

We may be unable to secure necessary hardware, software, telecommunications components and their operational support,
and the related product development, which may impair our ability to provision and service our customers and to compete effectively.

Third-party firms supply most of the components used in delivering our products and services, including
set-tops and VOD equipment; interactive programming guides; cable modems; routers and other switching equipment; provisioning and other software; network connections for our phone services; fiber-optic cable
and construction services for expansion and upgrades of our network; and our customer billing platform. Some of these companies may have negotiating leverage over us because they are the sole supplier of certain products and services, or because
there may be a long lead time and/or significant expense required to transition to another provider. We also rely on these third-party firms to develop next-generation technology so that we may stay competitive with the latest products and services,
and such reliance may result in less product innovation or higher costs than we would experience with multiple suppliers. In many cases, these hardware, software and operational support vendors and service providers have, either through contract or
as a result of intellectual property rights, a position of some exclusivity, and our operations depend on a successful relationship with these companies.

Any delays or disruptions in the relationship as a result of contractual disagreements, operational or financial failures on the part of the
suppliers, or other adverse events affecting these suppliers could negatively affect our ability to effectively provision and service our customers. We may face significant lapses in service and costs to upgrade our networks to allow them to operate
with alternate equipment if such events were to occur, which would negatively affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our business depends on certain intellectual property rights and on not infringing on the intellectual property rights
of others.

We rely on our copyrights, trademarks and trade secrets, as well as licenses and other agreements with our vendors and
other parties, to use our technologies, conduct our operations and sell our products and services. Third-party firms have in the past, and may in the future, assert claims or initiate litigation related to patent, copyright, trademark, and other
intellectual property rights to technologies and related standards that are relevant to us. These assertions have increased over time as a result of our growth and the general increase in the pace of patent claims assertions, particularly in the
United States. Recently, the number of intellectual property infringement claims has been increasing in the communications and entertainment fields, and from time to time, we have been party to litigation alleging that certain of our services or
technologies infringe upon the intellectual property rights of others. Because of the large number of patents in the networking field, the secrecy of some pending patents and the rapid rate of issuance of new patents, it is not economically
practical or, in some cases, possible to determine in advance whether a product or any of its components infringes or will infringe on the patent rights of others. Asserted claims and/or initiated litigation can include claims against us or our
manufacturers, suppliers, or customers, alleging infringement of their proprietary rights with respect to our existing or future products and/or services or components of those products and/or services. Regardless of the merit of these claims, they
can be time-consuming to defend; result in costly litigation and diversion of technical and management personnel; and require us to develop a non-infringing technology or enter into license agreements. There
can be no assurance that licenses will be available on acceptable terms and conditions, if at all, or that any indemnification by our suppliers will be adequate to cover our costs if a claim were brought directly against us or our customers.
Furthermore, because of the potential for high monetary awards that are not predictable, it is not unusual to find even arguably unmeritorious claims settled for significant amounts.

If any infringement or other intellectual property claim made against us by any third-party is
successful, if we are required to indemnify a customer with respect to a claim against the customer, or if we fail to develop non-infringing technology or license the proprietary rights on commercially
reasonable terms and conditions, our business, results of operations, and financial condition could be adversely affected.

The loss of key personnel could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Our success is substantially dependent upon the retention of, and the continued performance by, MCCs key personnel, including Rocco B.
Commisso, MCCs Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. If any of MCCs key personnel cease to participate in our business and operations, it could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Risks Related to our Financial Condition

We have a significant amount of debt, and the associated interest and principal payments could limit our operational
flexibility and have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, liquidity, and results of operations.

As of
December 31, 2016, our total debt was $1.628 billion. Given our substantial debt, we are highly leveraged and will continue to be so. Our debt obligations require us to use a large portion of our cash flows from operations to pay interest
and principal payments on such debt, resulting in less cash available to finance our operations, capital expenditures and other activities.

Our significant amount of debt and associated debt service requirements could have adverse consequences, such as:



limiting our ability to obtain future financing to refinance our existing indebtedness on terms acceptable to
us or at all;



exposing us to greater interest expense as a result of having to refinance existing debt on less favorable
terms than we currently experience, or due to higher market interest rates on 32% of our debt that is exposed to variable rates;



limiting our ability to react to changes in our business, which may place us at a competitive disadvantage
compared to competitors with less debt and stronger liquidity positions;



restricting us from making necessary capital expenditures or from pursuing strategic acquisitions, or causing
us to make divestitures of strategic or non-strategic assets; and

If we are unable to obtain financing on acceptable terms, or at all, to refinance our debt as it comes due, we would need to take other
actions, including selling assets or seeking strategic investments from third parties, potentially on unfavorable terms, and deferring capital expenditures or other discretionary uses of cash. Such potential asset sales or third-party investments
could adversely affect our results of operations, liquidity and financial condition, and any significant reduction in capital expenditures could affect our ability to compete effectively. If such measures were to become necessary, there can be no
assurance that we would be able to sell assets or raise strategic investment capital sufficient enough to meet our scheduled debt maturities as they come due.

The financial markets are subject to volatility and disruptions, which may adversely affect our access to, or the cost
of, new capital or our ability to refinance our scheduled debt maturities and other obligations as they come due.

Volatility and
disruptions in the capital and credit markets as a result of uncertainty, changing or increased regulation of financial institutions, reduced alternatives or failures of significant financial institutions could adversely affect our access to the
liquidity needed for our businesses. Such disruptions could require us to take measures to conserve cash until the markets stabilize or until alternative credit arrangements or other funding for our business needs can be arranged.

Our access to funds under our revolving credit commitments is dependent on the ability of the financial institutions that are parties to those
facilities to meet their funding commitments. Those financial institutions may not be able to meet their funding commitments if they experience shortages of capital and liquidity or if they experience excessive volumes of borrowing requests
within a short period of time. Moreover, the obligations of the financial institutions under our revolving credit commitments are several and not joint and, as a result, a funding default by one or more institutions does not need to be made up
by the others.

We are a holding company, and if our operating subsidiaries are unable to make funds available to us, we may not be
able to fund our indebtedness and other obligations.

We are a holding company, and do not have any operations or hold any assets
other than our investments in, and our advances to, our operating subsidiaries. Our operating subsidiaries conduct all of our consolidated operations and own substantially all of our consolidated assets. Our operating subsidiaries are separate and
distinct legal entities and have no obligation, contingent or otherwise, to make funds available to us.

The only source of cash that we have to fund our senior notes (including, without limitation, the
payment of interest on, and the repayment of, principal) is the cash that our operating subsidiaries generate from operations or borrow under their bank credit facility (the credit facility). The ability of our operating subsidiaries to
make funds available to us will depend upon their results and applicable laws and contractual restrictions, including the covenants set forth in the credit agreement governing the credit facility (the credit agreement). If our operating
subsidiaries were unable to make funds available to us, then we may not be able to make payments of principal or interest due under our senior notes. If such an event occurred, we may be required to adopt one or more alternatives, such as
refinancing our senior notes or the outstanding debt of our operating subsidiaries at or before maturity, or raising additional capital through debt or equity issuance, or both. If we were not able to successfully accomplish those tasks, then we may
have to take other actions, including selling assets or seeking strategic investments from third parties, potentially on unfavorable terms, and deferring capital expenditures or other discretionary uses of cash.

There can be no assurance that any of the foregoing actions would be successful. Any inability to meet our debt service obligations or
refinance our indebtedness would materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

A default under our credit agreement or indentures could result in an acceleration of our indebtedness and other
material adverse effects.

As of December 31, 2016, the principal financial covenants of the credit agreement required our
operating subsidiaries to maintain a total leverage ratio (as defined in the credit agreement) of no more than 5.0 to 1.0 and an interest coverage ratio (as defined in the credit agreement) of no less than 2.0 to 1.0. The credit agreement also
contains various other covenants that, among other things, impose certain limitations on mergers and acquisitions, consolidations and sales of certain assets, liens, restricted payments and certain transactions with affiliates. See Note 6 in our
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

As of December 31, 2016, the principal financial covenant of the indentures governing
our senior notes (the indentures) was a limitation on the incurrence of additional indebtedness based upon a maximum debt to operating cash flow ratio (as defined in the indenture) of 8.5 to 1.0. The indentures also contain various other
covenants, though they are generally less restrictive than those found in our credit facility. See Note 6 in our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

The breach of any of the covenants under the credit agreement or indentures could cause a default, which may result in the associated
indebtedness becoming immediately due and payable. If this were to occur, we would be unable to adequately finance our operations. The membership interests of our operating subsidiaries are pledged as collateral under our credit facility. A default
under our credit agreement could result in a foreclosure by the lenders on the membership interests pledged under that facility. Because we are dependent upon our operating subsidiaries for all of our cash flows, a foreclosure would have a material
adverse effect on our business, financial condition, liquidity, and results of operations.

In the event of a liquidation or
reorganization of any of our subsidiaries, the creditors of any of such subsidiaries, including trade creditors, would be entitled to a claim on the assets of such subsidiaries prior to any claims of the stockholders of any such subsidiaries, and
those creditors are likely to be paid in full before any distribution is made to such stockholders. To the extent that we, or any of our direct or indirect subsidiaries, are a creditor of another of our subsidiaries, the claims of such creditor
could be subordinated to any security interest in the assets of such subsidiary and/or any indebtedness of such subsidiary senior to that held by such creditor.

A lowering or cessation of the ratings assigned to our debt securities by ratings agencies may increase our future
borrowing costs and reduce our access to capital.

Our future access to the debt markets and the terms and conditions we receive
are influenced by our debt ratings. MCCs corporate credit ratings are Ba3 with a positive outlook by Moodys, and BB with a stable outlook by Standard and Poors (S&P). Our senior unsecured ratings are B2 with a
positive outlook by Moodys, and B+ with a stable outlook by S&P. There can be no assurance that Moodys or S&P will maintain their ratings on MCC and us. A negative change to these credit ratings could result in higher interest
rates on future debt issuance than we currently experience, or adversely impact our ability to raise additional funds.

Impairment of our goodwill and other intangible assets could cause
significant losses.

As of December 31, 2016, we had approximately $1.4 billion of unamortized intangible assets,
including franchise rights of $1.2 billion and goodwill of $0.2 billion on our consolidated balance sheets. These intangible assets represented approximately 60% of our total assets.

Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) No. 350  Intangibles  Goodwill and Other (ASC
350) requires that goodwill and other intangible assets deemed to have indefinite useful lives, such as cable franchise rights, cease to be amortized. ASC 350 also requires that goodwill and certain intangible assets be tested at
least annually for impairment. If we find that the carrying value of goodwill or cable franchise rights exceeds its fair value, we will reduce the carrying value of the goodwill or intangible asset to the fair value, and will recognize an impairment
loss in our results of operations. See Managements Discussion and Analysis  Critical Accounting Policies  Valuation and Impairment Testing of Indefinite-lived Intangibles and Note 2 in our Notes to Consolidated
Financial Statements.

Risks Related to Legislative and Regulatory Matters

Changes in government regulation could adversely impact our business.

The cable industry is subject to extensive legislation and regulation at the federal and local levels and, in some instances, at the state
level. Additionally, our HSD and phone services are also subject to regulation, and additional regulation is under consideration. Aspects of such regulation are currently the subject of judicial and administrative proceedings, legislative and
administrative proposals, and lobbying efforts by us and our competitors. Legislation is reportedly under consideration that could entirely rewrite our principal regulatory statute, and the FCC and/or Congress may attempt to change the
classification of or change the way that our video and/or HSD services are regulated and/or change the framework under which broadcast signals are carried, remove the copyright compulsory license and change the rights and obligations of our
competitors. We expect that court actions and regulatory proceedings will continue to refine our rights and obligations under applicable federal, state and local laws. The results of current or future judicial and administrative proceedings and
legislative activities cannot be predicted. Modifications to existing requirements or imposition of new requirements or limitations could have an adverse impact on our business including those described below. See Business  Legislation
and Regulation.

Reclassification of the regulatory status of HSD service to a telecommunications service under Title II of the
Communications Act may significantly impact how we provide and charge for our HSD service and operate our network by imposing significant regulations on us and introducing regulatory uncertainty due to lack of clarity of new regulations. The FCC
could choose to impose this regulation in a way that adversely affects our business by imposing new regulatory burdens and limiting our business and customer relationships. The regulatory scheme introduced in the FCCs Open Internet Order
relies heavily on forbearance of many types of Title II regulations, however, the FCC could at any time in the future choose to forgo forbearance and impose significant new regulations of our HSD service. As only one example, the FCC has decided to
forebear from applying its extensive authority to regulate prices under Title II, and if it decided to end that forbearance, our results of operations could suffer. Even if the FCC continues to forebear from applying certain provisions of Title II,
our business, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely impacted by the provisions that it does intend to apply. In addition, the uncertainty created by the fact that the impact of the new rules cannot yet be determined and
the fact that the FCC could end forbearance in the future may impede our ability to obtain financing for our business or increase the cost of that financing. See Business  Legislation and Regulation General
 Recent Significant FCC Activity  HSD Regulatory Reclassification and Network Neutrality, Business  Legislation and Regulation General  Privacy and Data
Security,Business  Legislation and Regulation  General  Pole Attachment Regulation, Business  Legislation and Regulation  General  Universal Service
Fund andBusiness  Legislation and Regulation  HSD Service  State and Local Regulation and Competition.

Government financing of broadband providers in our service areas could adversely impact our business.

Possible changes to how USF monies are distributed may provide funding and subsidies to those who either compete with us or seek to compete
with us and therefore put us at a competitive disadvantage. Moreover, if the FCC chooses to impose USF fees on broadband services, bundled services or VoIP services that could increase the cost of our services and harm our ability to compete. See
Business  Legislation and Regulation  General  Universal Service Fund and Business  Legislation and Regulation  Voice-over-Internet-Protocol Phone Service  Federal
Regulatory Obligations.

Changes in the definition of an MVPD may make programming available to
Internet providers of video services.

If the FCC changes the definition of an MVPD to include those distributors of multiple
channels of video programming over the Internet that do not own physical distribution facilities, competitors and potential competitors may have access to certain traditional cable programming under the FCCs program access rules. If
Internet-based providers have greater access to programming of value to our customers and can offer service at a lower price because they are not facilities-based, that could hurt our business, financial condition and results of operations. See
Business  Legislation and Regulation  Cable System Operations and Video Services  Access to Certain Programming.

If
the FCC changes its regulations to require that we reengineer our systems to permit subscribers to use third-party devices and/or apps in place of our leased set-tops, that could impair the subscriber
experience potentially causing a loss of subscribers, raise our costs, decrease our revenues from leased set-tops, cause early retirement of set-tops, increase liability
arising from security vulnerabilities created by either the mandatory structure to allow third-party navigation devices or by the devices or apps themselves and could devalue viewing information by either limiting our access to it or by allowing
third-parties to capture and use such data for their own gain. If rules are adopted requiring the usage of downloadable security configurations from a third-party trust authority, the risk of security breaches to our system may increase and the
protection of the content that we provide as part of our cable service may be compromised, which in turn could increase our exposure to legal actions by affected third parties, such as the content owners. Any rules that would limit how much we
charge for leased navigation devices could adversely impact our revenue stream or our ability to price such devices competitively. See Business  Legislation and Regulation Cable System Operations and Video
ServicesCable Equipment.

Denials of franchise renewals or continued absence of
franchise parity can adversely impact our business.

Where state-issued franchises are not available, local franchising authorities
may demand concessions, or other commitments, as a condition to renewal, and these concessions or other commitments could be costly. Although the Cable Act affords certain protections, there is no assurance that we will not be compelled to meet such
demands in order to obtain renewals.

Our cable systems are operated under non-exclusive
franchises. We believe that, as of December 31, 2016, various entities are currently offering video service, through wireline distribution networks, to about 33% of our estimated homes passed. Because of the FCCs actions to speed issuance
of local competitive franchises and because many states in which we operate cable systems have adopted, and other states may adopt, legislation to allow others, including local telephone companies, to deliver services in competition with our cable
service without obtaining equivalent local franchises, we may face not only increasing competition but we may be at a competitive disadvantage due to lack of regulatory parity. Any of these factors could adversely affect our business. See
Business  Legislation and Regulation  Cable System Operations and Video Services  State and Local Regulation  Franchise Matters.

Our phone service may become subject to additional regulation.

The regulatory treatment of phone services that we and other providers offer remains uncertain. The FCC, Congress, the courts and the states
continue to look at issues surrounding the provision of VoIP, including whether this service is properly classified as either a telecommunications service or an information service. Any changes to existing law as it applies to VoIP or any
determination that results in greater or different regulatory obligations than competing services would result in increased costs, lower revenues or an impeded ability to effectively compete or otherwise adversely affect our ability to successfully
conduct our phone business. See Business  Legislation and Regulation  Voice-over-Internet-Protocol Phone Service  Federal Law.

Our cable facilities are often attached to, or use, public utility poles, ducts or conduits. Although changes in 2011 to the
FCCs long-standing pole attachment rate formulas and attachment requirements may be beneficial to us, the effective and significant lowering of the rate attachment costs to our telecommunications competitors through the FCCs 2015 Open
Internet Order coupled with increasing their ease of attachment may significantly benefit those that provide services that compete with ours. Our business, financial condition and results of operations could suffer a material adverse impact from
changes that make it both easier and less costly for those who compete with us to attach to poles. See Business  Legislation and Regulation  GeneralPole Attachment Regulation.

If Congress either eliminates the current cable compulsory license or enacts the proposed revisions to the
Copyright Act, the elimination could impose increased costs and transactional burdens or the revisions could impose oversight and conditions that could adversely affect our business. Additionally, the Copyright Offices implementation of any
such legislative changes could impose requirements on us or permit overly intrusive access to financial and operational records. Any future decision by Congress to eliminate the cable compulsory license, which would require us to obtain copyright
licensing of all broadcast material at the source, would impose significant administrative burdens and additional costs that could adversely affect our business. See Business  Legislation and Regulation  Cable System Operations
and Video Services  Federal Regulation  Copyright.

MCCs Chairman and Chief Executive Officer has the ability to
control all major corporate decisions, and a sale of his ownership interest could result in a change of control that would have unpredictable effects.

An entity wholly-owned by Rocco B. Commisso and related parties is the sole shareholder of MCC. Mr. Commisso is MCCs founder,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. Our debt arrangements provide that a default may result upon certain change of control events, including if Mr. Commisso were to sell a significant stake in us or MCC to a third party. Our debt agreements
provide, however, that a change of control will not be deemed to have occurred so long as MCC continues to be our manager and/or Mr. Commisso continues to be MCCs, or our, Chairman or Chief Executive Officer.

A change in control could result in a default under our debt arrangements, which require us to offer to repurchase our senior notes at 101% of
their principal amount, trigger a variety of federal, state and local regulatory consent requirements and potentially limit MCCs further utilization of net operating losses for income tax purposes. Any of the foregoing results could adversely
affect our results of operations and financial condition.

ITEM 1B.

UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS

None.

ITEM 2.

PROPERTIES

Our principal physical assets consist of fiber-optic networks, including signal receiving, encoding and decoding devices, headend facilities
and distribution systems and equipment at, or near, customers homes. The signal receiving apparatus typically includes a tower, antenna, ancillary electronic equipment and earth stations for reception of satellite signals. Headend facilities
are located near the receiving devices. Our distribution system consists primarily of coaxial and fiber-optic cables and related electronic equipment. Customer premise equipment consists of set-top devices,
cable modems and related equipment. Our distribution systems and related equipment generally are attached to utility poles under pole rental agreements with local public utilities, although in some areas the distribution cable is buried in
underground ducts or trenches. The physical components of the cable systems require maintenance and periodic upgrading to improve performance and capacity. In addition, we maintain a network operations center with equipment necessary to monitor and
manage the status of our network.

We own and lease the real property housing our regional call centers, business offices and warehouses
throughout our operating regions. Our headend facilities, signal reception sites and microwave facilities are located on owned and leased parcels of land, and we generally own the towers on which certain of our equipment is located. We own most of
our service vehicles. We believe that our properties, both owned and leased, are in good condition and are suitable and adequate for our operations.

ITEM 3.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

We are involved in various legal actions arising in the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of management, the ultimate disposition of
these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations, cash flows or business.

In the table below,
we provide selected historical consolidated statement of operations data, cash flow data and other data for the years ended December 31, 2012 through 2016 and balance sheet data and operating data as of December 31, 2012 through 2016,
which are derived from our consolidated financial statements (except other data and operating data). Dollars are in thousands, except operating data. See Item 7. Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations.

OIBDA is not a financial measure calculated in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles (GAAP) in the United States. We define OIBDA as operating income before depreciation and amortization. OIBDA has inherent limitations as discussed below.

OIBDA is one of the primary measures used by management to evaluate our performance and to forecast future
results. We believe OIBDA is useful for investors because it enables them to assess our performance in a manner similar to the methods used by management, and provides a measure that can be used to analyze value and compare the companies in the
cable industry. A limitation of OIBDA, however, is that it excludes depreciation and amortization, which represents the periodic costs of certain capitalized tangible and intangible assets used in generating revenues in our business. Management uses
a separate process to budget, measure and evaluate capital expenditures. In addition, OIBDA may not be comparable to similarly titled
measures used by other companies, which may have different depreciation and amortization policies.

OIBDA should not be regarded as an alternative to operating income or net income as an indicator of
operating performance, or to the statement of cash flows as a measure of liquidity, nor should it be considered in isolation or as a substitute for financial measures prepared in accordance with GAAP. We believe that operating income is the most
directly comparable GAAP financial measure to OIBDA.

The following represents a reconciliation of OIBDA to operating income, which is the most directly comparable
GAAP measure (dollars in thousands):

Year Ended December 31,

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

OIBDA

$

399,364

$

379,467

$

369,699

$

351,390

$

345,434

Depreciation and amortization

(147,114

)

(144,220

)

(153,478

)

(156,397

)

(151,240

)

Operating income

$

252,250

$

235,247

$

216,221

$

194,993

$

194,194

(2)

Represents OIBDA as a percentage of revenues. See Note 1 above.

(3)

Represents the number of single residence homes, apartments and condominium units that we can connect to our
distribution system without further extending the transmission lines, based on best available information.

(4)

Represents customers receiving video service. Business services video customers that are billed on a bulk
basis are converted into equivalent video customers by dividing their associated revenues by the applicable full-price residential video rate, which is generally consistent with the methodology used in determining payments made to programmers. Video
customers include connections to schools, libraries, local government offices and employee households that may not be charged for basic or expanded video service, but may be charged for higher tier video, HSD, phone or other services. Our
methodology of calculating the number of video customers may not be identical to those used by other companies offering similar services.

(5)

Represents customers receiving HSD service. Small- to medium-sized
business HSD customers are converted to equivalent HSD customers by dividing their associated revenues by the applicable full-price residential HSD rate. Medium- to large-sized business customers who take our
enterprise network services are not counted as HSD customers. Our methodology of calculating HSD customers may not be identical to those used by other companies offering similar services.

(6)

Represents customers receiving phone service. Small- to medium-sized
business phone customers are converted to equivalent phone customers by dividing their associated revenues by the applicable full-price residential phone rate. Customers who take our IP-enabled voice trunk
service are not counted as phone customers. Our methodology of calculating phone customers may not be identical to those used by other companies offering similar services.

(7)

Represents the sum of video, HSD and phone customers.

(8)

Represents the total number of residential and business customers that receive at least one service, without
regard to which service(s) customers purchase.

MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Reference is made to the Risk
Factors in Item 1A for a discussion of important factors that could cause actual results to differ from expectations and any of our forward-looking statements contained herein. The following discussion should be read in conjunction with
our audited consolidated financial statements as of, and for the years ended, December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014.

Overview

We are a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mediacom Communications Corporation (MCC), the nations fifth largest cable company based
on the number of customers who purchase one or more video services, or video customers. As of December 31, 2016, we served approximately 463,000 video customers, 643,000 high-speed data (HSD) customers and 264,000 phone customers,
aggregating 1.37 million primary service units (PSUs). As of the same date, we served 754,000 residential and business customer relationships.

We offer video, HSD and phone services individually and in bundled packages to residential and small- to
medium-sized business (SMB) customers over our hybrid fiber and coaxial cable (HFC) network, and provide fiber-based network and transport services to medium- and large-sized businesses, governments and educational institutions. We also sell advertising to local, regional and national advertisers on television and digital platforms, and offer home security and automation
services to residential customers. Our services are typically offered on a subscription basis, with installation fees, monthly rates and related charges associated with the services, equipment and features customers choose. We offer discounted
packages for new customers and those who take multiple services, and our Xtream marketing brand offers bundled packages that include video with digital video recorder (DVR) service and set-tops
with the TiVo guide, HSD with a wireless gateway, and phone service. We believe the simplified pricing and value proposition of our Xtream bundles has positively influenced the markets perception of our products and services, and has driven
higher levels of sales activity.

Over the past several years, revenues from residential services have increased mainly due to residential
HSD customer growth. We expect to continue to grow revenues from residential services through HSD customer growth and increased revenue per customer relationship as more customers take faster HSD tiers and advanced video services, including our
next-generation set-top and DVR service. Our business services revenues have grown at a meaningfully faster rate than our residential revenues as we have rapidly expanded our SMB and, to a lesser extent,
enterprise customer base. In an effort to sustain or accelerate our rate of growth in business services revenues, we have recently commenced Project Open Road, where we plan to extend our network to a meaningful number of new commercial
locations that contain multiple businesses that represent potential customers.

Our residential video service principally competes with
direct broadcast satellite (DBS) providers that offer video programming substantially similar to ours. Over the past several years, we have experienced meaningful video customer losses, as DBS competitors have deployed aggressive
marketing campaigns, including deeply discounted promotional packages, more advanced customer premise equipment and exclusive sports programming. We have placed a greater emphasis on higher quality residential customer relationships, as we have
generally eliminated or reduced tactical discounts for customers not likely to purchase two or more services or to stay with us for an extended period, which may further contribute to video customer declines. To appeal to such higher-quality
residential consumers, we have deployed a next-generation Internet Protocol (IP) set-top that offers a cloud-based, graphically-rich TiVo guide with access and integrated search functionality to
certain third-party Internet-based video applications (video apps), such as Netflix, Hulu, and YouTube, along with a multi-room DVR service and the ability to download certain content to personal devices. In 2017, we also plan to
introduce a new, lower-cost, IP set-top that offers the TiVo guide and video apps, but without the required equipment for DVR service. We believe our video strategy has enabled us to reduce the rate of video
customer losses and regain market share of new video connects. If we are unsuccessful with this strategy and cannot offset video customer losses through higher average unit pricing and greater penetration of our advanced video services, we may
experience future declines in annual video revenues.

Our residential HSD service competes primarily with digital subscriber line
(DSL) services offered by local phone companies, and we have continued to grow our HSD customer base over the last several years. We believe our HSD service is generally superior to DSL offerings in our service areas as our minimum
downstream speed of 60 megabits per second (Mbps) is faster than the highest speed offered by substantially all our DSL competition. As consumers bandwidth requirements have dramatically risen in recent years, we have dedicated
increasing levels of capital expenditures to allow for faster speeds and greater levels of consumption. Through Project Gigabit, we have installed the necessary equipment to transition substantially all our homes passed to the DOCSIS 3.1
platform, which will allow us to introduce packages offering speeds of up to 1 gigabit per second (Gbps) across most of our markets in 2017. We expect to continue to grow HSD revenues as we further take market share and our HSD customers
choose higher speed tiers.

Our residential phone service mainly competes with substantially comparable phone services offered by local
phone companies and cellular phone services offered by national wireless providers. We believe we will continue to grow residential phone customers, but may experience modest declines in phone revenues due to unit pricing pressure.

Our business services primarily compete for SMB customers with local phone companies, many of
which have had a historical advantage given long-term relationships with such customers, a nation-wide footprint that allows them to more effectively serve multiple locations, and existing networks built in certain commercial areas that we do not
currently serve. Our cell tower backhaul and enterprise-level services also face competition from these local phone companies as well as other carriers, including metro and regional fiber-based carriers. In recent years, we have aggressively
marketed our business services and expanded our network into additional commercial areas, which has allowed us to gain meaningful market share and led to strong growth rates of business services revenues in the past several years, which we believe
will continue.

We compete for advertising revenues principally against local broadcast stations, national cable and broadcast networks,
radio, newspapers, magazines, outdoor display and Internet companies. Competition will likely elevate as new formats for advertising are introduced into our markets.

Historically, video programming has been our single largest expense, and we have experienced substantial increases in programming costs per
video customer, particularly for sports and local broadcast programming, well in excess of the inflation rate or the change in the consumer price index. We believe these expenses will continue to grow at a high single- to low double-digit rate
because of the demands of large media conglomerates or other owners of most of the popular cable networks and major market local broadcast stations, and of large independent television broadcast groups, who own or control a significant number of
local broadcast stations across the country and, in some cases, own, control or otherwise represent multiple stations in the same market. Moreover, many of those powerful owners of programming require us to purchase their networks and stations in
bundles and effectively dictate how we offer them to our customers, given the contractual economic penalties if we fail to comply. Consequently, we have little or no ability to individually or selectively negotiate for networks or stations, to
forego purchasing networks or stations that generate low customer interest, to offer sports programming services, such as ESPN and regional sports networks, on one or more separate tiers, or to offer networks or stations on an a la carte basis to
give our customers more choice and potentially lower their costs. In many instances, such programmers have created additional networks and migrated popular programming, particularly sports programming, to these new networks, which has contributed to
the increases in our programming costs. Additionally, we believe certain programmers may also demand higher fees from us in an effort to partially offset declines in their advertising revenue as more advertisers allocate a greater portion of their
spending to Internet advertising. While such growth in programming expenses can be offset, in whole or in part, by rate increases, we expect our video gross margins will continue to decline if increases in programming costs outpace any growth in
video revenues.

Recent Developments

MCCs Capital Plan

In 2016, MCC announced a plan for approximately $1 billion of total capital expenditures to be made by us and Mediacom LLC during the three
years ending December 2018 (MCCs Capital Plan). Among the planned initiatives under MCCs Capital Plan include:

-

Project Gigabit, a wide-scale deployment of next-generation DOCSIS 3.1 technology that allows
the provisioning of 1 Gbps HSD service to substantially all of MCCs homes passed;

-

Project Open Road, which will connect over 70,000 new commercial locations that contain
multiple potential customers in an effort to continue to grow business services revenues at an accelerated rate;

-

Residential line extensions resulting in at least 50,000 additional homes passed; and

-

Development of community Wi-Fi access points throughout high-traffic commercial and public areas.

During the year ended December 31, 2016, MCC made an aggregate $335.2 million of capital expenditures, of
which $179.9 million was invested by us. We expect similar levels of capital investments by us and MCC over each of the next two years, with our portion of the initiatives outlined above approximating a level that is commensurate with our
capital expenditures as a percentage of MCCs total capital expenditures. We have already made meaningful progress under MCCs Capital Plan, including the recent announcement that MCC has become the first major U.S. cable company to have
fully installed the necessary equipment to transition to the DOCSIS 3.1 platform. We believe these initiatives will allow us to continue to improve our competitive position for both residential and business services customers in our markets,
with additional future revenue and cash flow growth driven by incremental gains in market share than we would have experienced otherwise.

Video
revenues primarily represent monthly subscription fees charged to residential customers, which vary according to the level of service, the type and amount of equipment taken, and revenue from the sale of VOD content and pay-per-view events. Video revenues also include installation, reconnection and wire maintenance fees, franchise and late payment fees, and other ancillary revenues.

HSD

HSD revenues
primarily represent monthly subscription fees charged to residential customers, which vary according to the level of service and type of equipment taken.

Business services revenues primarily represent monthly fees charged to SMBs for video, HSD and phone services, which vary according to the
level of service taken, and fees charged to large businesses, including revenues from cell tower backhaul and enterprise class services.

Advertising

Advertising revenues primarily represent revenues received from selling advertising time we receive under programming license agreements to
local, regional and national advertisers for the placement of commercials on channels offered on our video services.

Video programming costs, which are generally paid on a per-video customer basis, have historically
represented our single largest expense. In recent years, we have experienced substantial increases in the per-unit cost of programming, which we believe will continue to grow due to the increasing contractual
rates and retransmission consent fees demanded by large programmers and independent broadcasters. Our HSD costs fluctuate depending on customers bandwidth consumption and customer growth. Phone service costs are mainly determined by network
configuration, customers long distance usage and net termination payments to other carriers. Our other service costs generally rise as a result of customer growth and inflationary cost increases for personnel, outside vendors and other
expenses. Personnel and related support costs may increase as the percentage of expenses that we capitalize declines due to lower levels of new service installations. We anticipate that service costs, with the exception of programming expenses, will
remain fairly consistent as a percentage of our revenues.

Selling, General and Administrative Expenses

Significant selling, general and administrative expenses comprise: call center, customer service, marketing, business services, support and
administrative personnel; franchise fees and other taxes; bad debt; billing; marketing; advertising; and general office administration. These expenses generally rise due to customer growth and inflationary cost increases for personnel, outside
vendors and other expenses. We anticipate that selling, general and administrative expenses will remain fairly consistent as a percentage of our revenues.

Service costs and selling, general and administrative expenses exclude depreciation and
amortization, which we present separately.

Management Fee Expense

Management fee expense reflects compensation paid to MCC for the performance of services it provides our operating subsidiaries in accordance
with management agreements between MCC and our operating subsidiaries.

Capital Expenditures

Capital expenditures are categorized in accordance with the National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA) disclosure
guidelines, which are intended to provide more consistency in the reporting of capital expenditures among peer companies in the cable industry. These disclosure guidelines are not required under GAAP, nor do they impact our accounting for capital
expenditures under GAAP. Our capital expenditures comprise:



Customer premise equipment, which include equipment and labor costs incurred in the purchase and installation
of equipment that resides at a residential or commercial customers premise;



Enterprise networks, which include costs associated with furnishing custom fiber solutions for medium- to large-sized business customers, including for cell tower backhaul;



Scalable infrastructure, which include costs incurred in the purchase and installation of equipment at our
facilities associated with network-wide distribution of services;



Line extensions, which include costs associated with the extension of our network into new service areas;



Upgrade / rebuild, which include costs to modify or replace existing components of our network; and



Support capital, which include vehicles and all other capital purchases required to support our customers and
general business operations.

Use of Non-GAAP Financial Measures

OIBDA is not a financial measure calculated in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) in the
United States. We define OIBDA as operating income before depreciation and amortization. OIBDA has inherent limitations as discussed below.

OIBDA is one of the primary measures used by management to evaluate our performance and to forecast future results. We believe OIBDA is useful
for investors because it enables them to assess our performance in a manner similar to the methods used by management, and provides a measure that can be used to analyze our value and evaluate our performance compared to other companies in the cable
industry. A limitation of OIBDA, however, is that it excludes depreciation and amortization, which represents the periodic costs of certain capitalized tangible and intangible assets used in generating revenues in our business. Management uses a
separate process to budget, measure and evaluate capital expenditures. In addition, OIBDA may not be comparable to similarly titled measures used by other companies, which may have different depreciation and amortization policies.

OIBDA should not be regarded as an alternative to operating income or net income as an indicator of operating performance, or to the statement
of cash flows as a measure of liquidity, nor should it be considered in isolation or as a substitute for financial measures prepared in accordance with GAAP. We believe that operating income is the most directly comparable GAAP financial measure to
OIBDA.

Year Ended December 31, 2016 Compared to Year Ended December 31,
2015 Compared to Year Ended December 31, 2014

The table below sets forth our consolidated statements of operations and OIBDA
for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014 (dollars in thousands and percentage changes that are not meaningful are marked NM):

Year Ended December 31,

% Change

% Change

2016

2015

2014

2015 to 2016

2014 to 2015

Revenues

$

1,033,239

$

982,362

$

948,447

5.2

%

3.6

%

Costs and expenses:

Service costs (exclusive of depreciation and amortization)

419,406

401,751

381,014

4.4

%

5.4

%

Selling, general and administrative expenses

193,669

182,144

180,084

6.3

%

1.1

%

Management fee expense

20,800

19,000

17,650

9.5

%

7.6

%

Depreciation and amortization

147,114

144,220

153,478

2.0

%

(6.0

%)

Operating income

252,250

235,247

216,221

7.2

%

8.8

%

Interest expense, net

(78,725

)

(94,668

)

(100,436

)

(16.8

%)

(5.7

%)

Gain on derivatives, net

1,203

9,173

23,226

NM

NM

Loss on early extinguishment of debt

(1,156

)

(4,382

)

(300

)

NM

NM

Other expense, net

(1,686

)

(1,377

)

(1,262

)

22.4

%

9.1

%

Net income

$

171,886

$

143,993

$

137,449

19.4

%

4.8

%

OIBDA

$

399,364

$

379,467

$

369,699

5.2

%

2.6

%

The table below represents a reconciliation of OIBDA to operating income, which we believe is the most
directly comparable GAAP measure (dollars in thousands):

The tables below set forth revenue and selected customer and average monthly revenue statistics as of, and for the years ended,
December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014 (dollars in thousands, except per unit data):

Year Ended December 31,

% Change

% Change

2016

2015

2014

2015 to 2016

2014 to 2015

Video

$

450,658

$

451,446

$

449,038

(0.2

%)

0.5

%

HSD

331,778

295,049

265,685

12.4

%

11.1

%

Phone

57,999

60,087

63,111

(3.5

%)

(4.8

%)

Business services

141,054

128,684

115,348

9.6

%

11.6

%

Advertising

51,750

47,096

55,265

9.9

%

(14.8

%)

Total

$

1,033,239

$

982,362

$

948,447

5.2

%

3.6

%

Year Ended December 31,

% Change

% Change

2016

2015

2014

2015 to 2016

2014 to 2015

Video customers

463,000

480,000

500,000

(3.5

%)

(4.0

%)

HSD customers

643,000

605,000

564,000

6.3

%

7.3

%

Phone customers

264,000

239,000

218,000

10.5

%

9.6

%

Primary service units (PSUs)

1,370,000

1,324,000

1,282,000

3.5

%

3.3

%

Customer relationships

754,000

732,000

710,000

3.0

%

3.1

%

Average total monthly revenue per customer relationship (1)

$

115.89

$

113.54

$

111.32

2.1

%

2.0

%

(1)

Represents average total monthly revenues for the year divided by average customer relationships for the year.

Revenues increased 5.2% for year ended December 31, 2016, due to greater HSD and, to a much lesser extent,
business services and advertising revenues, slightly offset by declines in phone and, to a lesser extent, video revenues.

Revenues
increased 3.6% for the year ended December 31, 2015, due to greater HSD and, to a lesser extent, business services and video revenues, offset in part by declines in advertising and, to a lesser extent, phone revenues.

Video

Video revenues
declined 0.2% for the year ended December 31, 2016, mainly due to a lower residential video customer base compared to the prior year, mostly offset by rate adjustments associated with the pass-through of higher programming costs for
retransmission consent fees and, to a much lesser extent, for regional sports networks and more customers taking our advanced video services.

Video revenues increased 0.5% for the year ended December 31, 2015, largely due to rate adjustments associated with the pass-through of
higher programming costs for retransmission consent fees and, to a lesser extent, for regional sports networks, mostly offset by a lower residential video customer base compared to the prior year.

We lost 17,000, 20,000 and 28,000 video customers during the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively. As of
December 31, 2016, we served 463,000 video customers, or 30.8% of our estimated homes passed, and 42.0% of our residential video customers took our DVR service, which represents a large component of revenues from advanced video services.

HSD

HSD revenues grew
12.4% and 11.1% for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively, primarily due to more customers paying higher rates for faster speed tiers and a greater residential HSD customer base compared to the prior years.

We gained 38,000, 41,000 and 30,000 HSD customers during the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively. As of
December 31, 2016, we served 643,000 HSD customers, or 42.8% of our estimated homes passed, and 49.3% of our residential HSD customers took our wireless home gateway service.

Phone revenues decreased 3.5% and 4.8% for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively, principally due to higher levels of
discounted pricing, offset in part by a greater residential phone customer base compared to the prior years.

We gained 25,000, 21,000 and
11,000 phone customers during the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively. As of December 31, 2016, we served 264,000 phone customers, or 17.6% of our estimated homes passed.

Business Services

Business services revenues rose 9.6% and 11.6% for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively, mainly due to a greater SMB
customer base compared to the prior years.

Advertising

Advertising revenues grew 9.9% for the year ended December 31, 2016, predominantly due to higher levels of political advertising compared
to the prior year. Advertising revenues fell 14.8% for the year ended December 31, 2015, substantially due to lower levels of political advertising compared to the prior year.

Costs and Expenses

Service Costs

Service
costs increased 4.4% and 5.4% for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively, primarily due to greater video programming charges and, to a lesser extent, for the year ended December 31, 2016, employee costs. Programming costs
grew 4.4% and 7.8% for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively, principally due to higher fees associated with the renewal of programming contracts and contractual increases under agreements with certain local broadcast
stations and cable networks, offset in part by a lower video customer base compared to the prior years. Employee costs were 6.0% higher for the year ended December 31, 2016, largely due to increased technical, maintenance and other operating
employee staff and compensation levels.

Service costs as a percentage of revenues were 40.6%, 40.9% and 40.2% for the years ended
December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

Selling, General and Administrative Expenses

Selling, general and administrative expenses increased 6.3% for the year ended December 31, 2016, largely as a result of greater
marketing, employee and, to a lesser extent, bad debt and advertising expenses. Marketing expenses rose 11.3%, principally due to expenses related to marketing of our Xtream bundled services and, to a lesser extent, the marketing of our business
services and a greater use of third-party sales services. Employee expenses increased 3.6%, mainly due to greater customer service and other administrative employee staff and compensation levels. Bad debt grew 14.0%, substantially due to the aging
of business customer accounts. Advertising expenses rose 16.5%, predominantly due to new promotional activity for our advertising sales group.

Selling, general and administrative expenses increased 1.1% for the year ended December 31, 2015, largely as a result of greater
marketing costs, offset in part by lower bad debt and administrative expenses. Marketing costs grew 11.7%, principally due to expenses related to the marketing of our Xtream bundled services, the marketing of our business services and greater use of
third-party sales services. Bad debt declined 8.0%, substantially due to a lower number of written off accounts. Administrative expenses fell 20.8%, mainly as a result of lower customer service software
expenses and a decline in legal and other professional fees.

Selling, general and administrative expenses as a percentage of revenues
were 18.7%, 18.5% and 19.0% for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

Management Fee Expense

Management fee expense grew 9.5% and 7.6% for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively, reflecting higher fees charged by
MCC. Management fee expense as a percentage of revenues were 2.0%, 1.9% and 1.9% for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

Depreciation and amortization was 2.0% higher for the year ended December 31, 2016, as greater depreciation of investments in customer
premise equipment, HSD bandwidth expansion and business support were offset in part by long-lived network assets having been fully depreciated in the prior year.

Depreciation and amortization was 6.0% lower for the year ended December 31, 2015, mainly due to long-lived networks assets having been
fully depreciated in the prior year, offset in part by greater depreciation of investments in customer premise equipment, HSD bandwidth expansion and business support.

Operating Income

Operating income rose 7.2% and 8.8% for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively, as the increase in revenues was offset
in part by higher service costs and selling, general and administrative expenses.

Interest Expense, Net

Interest expense, net, fell 16.8% and 5.7% for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively, due to lower average borrowing
costs as a result of recent favorable financing transactions and, for the year ended December 31, 2016, lower average outstanding indebtedness.

Gain on Derivatives, Net

As a result of changes to the mark-to-market valuation of our
interest rate exchange agreements, we recorded net gains on derivatives of $1.2 million, $9.2 million and $23.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively. See Notes 4 and 6 in our Notes to
Consolidated Financial Statements.

Loss on Early Extinguishment of Debt

Loss on early extinguishment of debt totaled $1.2 million, $4.4 million and $0.3 million for the years ended December 31,
2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively, which represented the write-off of unamortized financing costs as a result of the repayment of certain previously existing term loans under our bank credit facility.

Other Expense, Net

Other expense, net, was $1.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2016, representing $1.5 million of revolving credit
commitment fees and $0.2 million of other net fees, $1.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2015, representing $1.2 million of revolving credit commitment fees and $0.2 million of other net fees, and $1.3 million
for the year ended December 31, 2014, representing $1.4 million of revolving credit commitment fees, partly offset by $0.1 million of other net income.

Net Income

As a
result of the factors described above, we recognized net income of $171.9 million, $144.0 million and $137.4 million for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

OIBDA

OIBDA grew
5.2% and 2.6% for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively, primarily due to the increase in revenues, offset in part by higher service costs and selling, general and administrative expenses.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Our net
cash flows provided by operating activities are primarily used to fund investments to enhance the capacity and reliability of our network and further expand our products and services, and make scheduled and voluntary repayments of our indebtedness
and periodic distributions to MCC. As of December 31, 2016, our near-term liquidity requirements included term loan principal repayments of $16.6 million over the next twelve months. As of the same date, our sources of liquidity included
$14.2 million of cash and $246.2 million of unused and available commitments under our $368.5 million revolving credit facility, after giving effect to $112.6 million of outstanding loans and $9.7 million of letters of
credit issued to various parties as collateral.

We believe that we will be able to continue to meet our current and long-term liquidity and
capital requirements, including fixed charges, through existing cash, internally generated cash flows from operating activities, cash available to us under our revolver credit commitments and our ability to obtain future financing. If we are unable
to obtain sufficient future financing on acceptable terms, or at all, we may need to take other actions to conserve or raise capital that we would not take otherwise. However, we have accessed the debt markets for significant amounts of capital in
the past, and expect to continue to be able to access these markets in the future as necessary.

Net Cash Flows
Provided by Operating Activities

Net cash flows provided by operating activities were $336.0 million for the year ended
December 31, 2016, primarily due to OIBDA of $399.4 million and the $11.5 million net change in our operating assets and liabilities, offset in part by interest expense of $78.7 million. The net change in our operating assets and
liabilities was primarily due to increases in accounts payable, accrued expenses, and other current liabilities of $5.9 million and in accounts payable to affiliates of $4.1 million, a decrease in accounts receivable, net, of
$2.0 million and an increase in deferred revenue of $2.0 million, offset in part by an increase in prepaid expenses and other assets of $2.4 million.

Net cash flows provided by operating activities were $297.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2015, primarily due to OIBDA of
$379.5 million and the $6.9 million net change in our operating assets and liabilities, offset in part by interest expense of $94.7 million. The net change in our operating assets and liabilities was primarily due to increases in
accounts payable, accrued expenses, and other current liabilities of $10.2 million, in accounts payable to affiliates of $9.2 million and in deferred revenue of $1.7 million, offset in part by increases in accounts receivable, net, of
$10.6 million and in prepaid expenses and other assets of $4.3 million.

Net Cash Flows Used in Investing
Activities

Capital expenditures continue to be our primary use of capital resources and generally comprise substantially all of
our net cash flows used in investing activities.

Net cash flows used in investing activities were $183.3 million for the year ended
December 31, 2016, substantially comprising $179.7 million of capital expenditures and a net change in accrued property, plant, and equipment of $3.8 million.

Net cash flows used in investing activities were $148.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2015, substantially comprising
$151.2 million of capital expenditures and $1.6 million associated with the acquisition of other intangible assets, slightly offset by a net change in accrued property, plant and equipment of $4.9 million.

Net cash flows used in financing activities were $149.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2016, comprising $201.8 million
of net repayments under the credit facility, $18.0 million of dividend payments on preferred members interest and $7.0 million of capital distributions to our parent, MCC, offset in part by $75.0 million of capital contributions
from our parent, MCC, and $2.8 million of other financing activities.

Net cash flows used in financing activities were
$148.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2015, substantially comprising $127.3 million of net repayments under the credit facility, $18.0 million of dividend payments on preferred members interest and
$2.3 million of financing costs.

Capital Structure

As of December 31, 2016, our total indebtedness was $1.628 billion, of which approximately 68% was at fixed interest rates or had
interest rate exchange agreements that fixed the variable portion of debt. During the year ended December 31, 2016, we paid cash interest of $76.7 million, net of capitalized interest.

2016 Financing Activity

On May 19, 2016, we repaid the entire $245.6 million balance of Term Loan I under our bank credit facility, funded by borrowings of
$170.6 million under our revolving credit commitments and $75.0 million of capital contributions from our parent, MCC.

Bank Credit Facility

As of December 31, 2016, we maintained a $1.384 billion credit facility, comprising $1,015.4 million of term loans with maturities ranging from
January 2021 to June 2021, and $368.5 million of revolving credit commitments, which are scheduled to expire in October 2019. As of the same date, we had $246.2 million of unused lines under our revolving credit commitments, all of which were
available to be borrowed and used for general corporate purposes, after taking into account $112.6 million of outstanding loans and $9.7 million of letters of credit issued thereunder to various parties as collateral.

The credit facility is collateralized by our ownership interests in our operating subsidiaries, and is guaranteed by us on a limited recourse
basis to the extent of such ownership interests. The credit agreement governing the credit facility (the credit agreement) requires us to maintain a total leverage ratio (as defined in the credit agreement) of no more than 5.0 to 1.0 and
an interest coverage ratio (as defined in the credit agreement) of no less than 2.0 to 1.0. For all periods through December 31, 2016, our operating subsidiaries were in compliance with all covenants under the credit agreement including, as of
the same date, a total leverage ratio of 2.5 to 1.0 and an interest coverage ratio of 4.4 to 1.0. We do not believe that our operating subsidiaries will have any difficulty complying with any of the covenants under the credit agreement in the near
future.

Interest Rate Swaps

We have entered into several interest rate exchange agreements (which we refer to as interest rate swaps) with various banks to fix
the variable rate on a portion of our borrowings under the credit facility to reduce the potential volatility in our interest expense that may result from changes in market interest rates. As December 31, 2016, we had interest rate swaps that
fixed the variable portion of $600 million of borrowings at a rate of 1.5%, all of which are scheduled to expire during December 2018.

As of December 31, 2016, the weighted average rate on outstanding borrowings under the credit facility, including the effects of our
interest rate swaps, was 3.5%.

Senior Notes

As of December 31, 2016, we had $500.0 million of outstanding senior notes, comprising $200.0 million of 5 1⁄2% senior notes due April 2021 and $300.0 million of 6 3⁄8% senior
notes due April 2023.

Our senior notes are unsecured obligations, and the indentures governing our senior notes (the
indentures) limit the incurrence of additional indebtedness based upon a maximum debt to operating cash flow ratio (as defined in the indentures) of 8.5 to 1.0. For all

periods through December 31, 2016, we were in compliance with covenants under the indentures including, as of the same date, a debt to operating cash flow ratio of 3.8 to 1.0. We do not
believe that we will have any difficulty complying with any of the covenants under the indentures in the near future.

Debt Ratings

MCCs corporate credit ratings are Ba3 by Moodys, with a positive outlook, and BB by Standard and Poors (S&P),
with a stable outlook, and our unsecured ratings are B2 by Moodys, with a positive outlook, and B+ by S&P, with a stable outlook.

There can be no assurance that Moodys or S&P will maintain their ratings on MCC and us. A negative change to these credit ratings
could result in higher interest rates on future debt issuance than we currently experience, or adversely impact our ability to raise additional funds. There are no covenants, events of default, borrowing conditions or other terms in the credit
agreement or indentures that are based on changes in our credit rating assigned by any rating agency.

Contractual Obligations and Commercial
Commitments

The following table summarizes our contractual obligations and commercial commitments, and the effects they are expected
to have on our liquidity and cash flow, for the five years subsequent to December 31, 2016 and thereafter (dollars in thousands)*:

Scheduled

Operating

Interest

Purchase

Debt Maturities

Leases

Expense (1)

Obligations (2)

Total

January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017

$

16,575

$

2,055

$

69,822

$

27,621

$

116,073

January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2019

145,725

2,504

134,336



282,565

January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2021

1,165,700

1,473

90,854



1,258,027

Thereafter

300,000

1,618

23,906



325,524

Total cash obligations

$

1,628,000

$

7,650

$

318,918

$

27,621

$

1,982,189

*

Refer to Note 6 and Note 11 in our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for a discussion of our
long-term debt and of our operating leases and other commitments and contingencies, respectively.

(1)

Interest payments on floating rate debt and interest rate swaps are estimated using amounts outstanding as of
December 31, 2016 and the average interest rates applicable under such debt obligations. Interest expense amounts are net of amounts capitalized.

(2)

We have contracts with programmers who provide video programming services to our customers. Our contracts
typically provide that we have an obligation to purchase video programming for our customers as long as we deliver cable services to such customers. We have no obligation to purchase these services if we are not providing cable services, except when
we do not have the right to cancel the underlying contract or for contracts with a guaranteed minimum commitment. There are no programming service amounts included in our purchase obligations. We also maintain other service agreements with various
vendors that contain future contractual commitments.

Critical Accounting Policies

The preparation of our financial statements requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets,
liabilities, revenues and expenses, and related disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities. Periodically, we evaluate our estimates, including those related to doubtful accounts, long-lived assets, capitalized costs and accruals. We base our
estimates on historical experience and on various other assumptions that we believe are reasonable. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions. We believe that the application of the critical accounting
policies discussed below requires significant judgments and estimates on the part of management. For a summary of our accounting policies, see Note 2 in our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

Property, Plant and Equipment

We capitalize the costs of new construction and replacement of our cable transmission and distribution facilities and new service installation
in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) No. 922  Entertainment  Cable Television. Costs associated with subsequent installations of additional services not previously installed at a
customers dwelling are capitalized to the extent such costs are incremental and directly attributable to the installation of such additional services. Capitalized costs include all direct labor and materials as well as certain indirect costs.
Capitalized costs are recorded as additions to property, plant and equipment and depreciated over the average life of the related assets. We use standard costing models, developed from actual historical costs and relevant operational data, to
determine our capitalized amounts. These models include labor rates, overhead rates and standard time

inputs to perform various installation and construction activities. The development of these standards involves significant judgment by management, especially in the development of standards for
our newer, advanced products and services in which historical data is limited. Changes to the estimates or assumptions used in establishing these standards could be material. We perform periodic evaluations of the estimates used to determine the
amount of costs that are capitalized. Any changes to these estimates, which may be significant, are applied in the period in which the evaluations were completed.

Valuation and Impairment Testing of Indefinite-lived Intangibles

As of December 31, 2016, we had approximately $1.4 billion of unamortized intangible assets, including franchise rights of
$1.2 billion and goodwill of $0.2 billion on our consolidated balance sheets. Franchise rights are our largest asset and, together with goodwill, represent approximately 60% of our total assets as of the same date.

Our cable systems operate under non-exclusive cable franchises, or franchise rights, granted by state
and local governmental authorities for varying lengths of time. We acquired these cable franchises through acquisitions of cable systems and were accounted for using the purchase method of accounting. As of December 31, 2016, we held 501
franchises in areas located throughout the United States. The value of a franchise is derived from the economic benefits we receive from the right to solicit new customers and to market new products and services, such as digital video, HSD and
phone, in a specific market territory. We concluded that our franchise rights have an indefinite useful life since, among other things, there are no legal, regulatory, contractual, competitive, economic or other factors limiting the period over
which these franchise rights contribute to our revenues and cash flows. Goodwill is the excess of the acquisition cost of an acquired entity over the fair value of the identifiable net assets acquired. In accordance with ASC No. 350 
Intangibles  Goodwill and Other (ASC 350), we do not amortize franchise rights and goodwill. Instead, such assets are tested annually for impairment or more frequently if impairment indicators arise.

We follow the provisions of ASC 350 to test our goodwill and franchise rights for impairment. We assess the fair values of our reporting unit
using the Excess Earnings Method of the Income Approach as our discounted cash flow (DCF) methodology, under which the fair value of cable franchise rights are determined in a direct manner. We employ the Multi-Period Excess Earnings
Method to calculate the fair values of our cable franchise rights, using unobservable inputs (Level 3). This assessment involves significant judgment, including certain assumptions and estimates that determine future cash flow expectations and other
future benefits, which are consistent with the expectations of buyers and sellers of cable systems in determining fair value. These assumptions and estimates include discount rates, estimated growth rates, terminal growth rates, revenues per
customer, market penetration as a percentage of homes passed and operating margin. We also consider market transactions, market valuations, research analyst estimates and other valuations using multiples of operating income before depreciation and
amortization to confirm the reasonableness of fair values determined by the DCF methodology. We also employ the Greenfield model to corroborate the fair values of our cable franchise rights determined under the
In-use Excess Earnings DCF methodology. Significant impairment in value resulting in impairment charges may result if the estimates and assumptions used in the fair value determination change in the future.
Such impairments, if recognized, could potentially be material.

Based on the guidance outlined in ASC 350, we have determined that the
unit of accounting, or reporting unit, for testing goodwill and franchise rights is Mediacom Broadband. Comprising cable system clusters across several states, Mediacom Broadband is at the financial reporting level that is managed and reviewed by
the corporate office (i.e., chief operating decision maker) including our determination as to how we allocate capital resources and utilize the assets. The reporting unit level also reflects the level at which the purchase method of accounting for
our acquisitions was originally recorded.

In accordance with ASC 350, we are required to determine goodwill impairment using a two-step process. The first step compares the fair value of a reporting unit with our carrying amount, including goodwill. If the fair value of the reporting unit exceeds our carrying amount, goodwill of the
reporting unit is considered not impaired and the second step is unnecessary. If the carrying amount of a reporting unit exceeds our fair value, the second step is performed to measure the amount of impairment loss, if any. The second step compares
the implied fair value of the reporting units goodwill, calculated using the residual method, with the carrying amount of that goodwill. If the carrying amount of the goodwill exceeds the implied fair value, the excess is recognized as an
impairment loss.

The impairment test for our franchise rights and other intangible assets not subject to amortization consists of a
comparison of the fair value of the intangible asset with its carrying value. If the carrying value of the intangible asset exceeds its fair value, the excess is recognized as an impairment loss.

Since our adoption of ASC 350 in 2002, we have not recorded any impairments as a result of our impairment testing. We completed our most
recent impairment test as of October 1, 2016, which reflected no impairment of our franchise rights, goodwill or other intangible assets.

For illustrative purposes, if there were a hypothetical decline of 15% in the fair values
determined for cable franchise rights, goodwill and other finite-lived intangible assets at our reporting unit, no impairment loss would result as of our impairment testing date of October 1, 2016.

We could record impairments in the future if there are changes in the long-term fundamentals of our business, in general market conditions or
in the regulatory landscape that could prevent us from recovering the carrying value of our long-lived intangible assets. The economic conditions affecting the U.S. economy, and how that may impact the fundamentals of our business, may have a
negative impact on the fair values of the assets in our reporting unit.

In accordance with Accounting Standards Update No. 2010-28  When to Perform Step 2 of the Goodwill Impairment Test for Reporting Units with Zero or Negative Carrying Amounts (a consensus of the FASB Emerging Issues Task Force), as of
October 1, 2016 and 2015, we have evaluated whether there are any adverse qualitative factors surrounding our Mediacom Broadband reporting unit indicating that a goodwill impairment may exist. We do not believe that it is more likely than
not that a goodwill impairment exists. As such, we have not performed Step 2 of the goodwill impairment test. As of both December 31, 2016 and 2015, the Mediacom Broadband reporting unit had a positive carrying amount.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

See
Note 2 in our Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

Inflation and Changing Prices

Our costs and expenses are subject to inflation and price fluctuations. Such changes in costs and expenses can generally be passed through to
customers. Programming costs have historically increased at rates in excess of inflation and are expected to continue to do so. We believe that under the FCCs existing cable rate regulations we may increase rates for cable services to more
than cover any increases in programming. However, competitive conditions and other factors in the marketplace may limit our ability to increase our rates.

In the normal course of business, we use interest rate exchange agreements (which we refer to as interest rate swaps) with
counterparty banks to fix the variable rate on a portion of our borrowings under our credit facility. As of December 31, 2016, we had current interest rate swaps with various banks pursuant to which the interest rate on $600 million of
variable rate debt was fixed at a rate of 1.5%, all of which were scheduled to expire during December 2018. The fixed rates of our interest rate swaps are offset against the applicable variable rate to determine the related interest expense.

Under the terms of our interest rate swaps, we are exposed to credit risk in the event of nonperformance by our counterparties; however,
we do not anticipate such nonperformance. As of December 31, 2016, based on their mark-to-market valuation, we would have paid approximately $0.7 million, if
we terminated these interest rate swaps. Our interest rate swaps and debt arrangements do not contain credit rating triggers that could affect our liquidity.

The table below provides the scheduled maturity and estimated fair value of our debt as of December 31, 2016 (dollars in thousands):

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements listed in the accompanying index present fairly, in all material respects, the financial
position of Mediacom Broadband LLC and its subsidiaries at December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2016 in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. In addition, in our opinion, the financial statement schedule listed in the accompanying index presents fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein
when read in conjunction with the related consolidated financial statements. These financial statements and financial statement schedule are the responsibility of the Companys management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these
financial statements and financial statement schedule based on our audits. We conducted our audits of these statements in accordance with the auditing standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and in accordance with
auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit
includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall financial statement
presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

Mediacom Broadband LLC
(Mediacom Broadband and collectively with its subsidiaries, we, our or us) is a Delaware limited liability company wholly-owned by Mediacom Communications Corporation (MCC). MCC is involved
in the acquisition and operation of cable systems serving smaller cities and towns in the United States, and its cable systems are owned and operated through our operating subsidiaries and those of Mediacom LLC, a New York limited liability company
wholly-owned by MCC. As limited liability companies, we and Mediacom LLC are not subject to income taxes and, as such, are included in the consolidated federal and state income tax returns of MCC, a C corporation.

Our principal operating subsidiaries conduct all of our consolidated operations and own substantially all of our consolidated assets. Our
operating subsidiaries are separate and distinct legal entities and have no obligation, contingent or otherwise, to make funds available to us.

We rely on our parent, MCC, for various services such as corporate and administrative support. Our financial position, results of operations
and cash flows could differ from those that would have resulted had we operated autonomously or as an entity independent of MCC. See Notes 8 and 9.

Mediacom Broadband Corporation, a Delaware corporation wholly-owned by us, co-issued, jointly and
severally with us, public debt securities. Mediacom Broadband Corporation has no operations, revenues or cash flows and has no assets, liabilities or stockholders equity on its balance sheet, other than a
one-hundred dollar receivable from an affiliate and the same dollar amount of common stock. Therefore, separate financial statements have not been presented for this entity.

2. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

Basis of Preparation of Consolidated Financial Statements

The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of us and our subsidiaries. All significant intercompany transactions and balances
have been eliminated. Comprehensive income is equal to net income for all periods presented. The preparation of the consolidated financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States of America
requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and
expenses during the reporting period. The accounting estimates that require managements most difficult and subjective judgments include: assessment and valuation of intangibles, accounts receivable allowance, useful lives of property, plant
and equipment and capitalized labor. Actual results could differ from those and other estimates.

Reclassifications

Certain reclassifications have been made to prior year amounts to conform to the current year presentation.

Revenue Recognition

Video, high speed data (HSD), phone and business services revenues are recognized when the services are provided to our customers.
We generally bill customers in advance for the services and equipment they have chosen to use and record such amounts as deferred revenue until the services are provided and the equipment is used. Credit risk is managed by disconnecting services to
customers who are deemed to be delinquent. Installation revenues are recognized as customer connections are completed because installation revenues are less than direct installation costs. Advertising sales are recognized in the period that the
advertisements are exhibited. Deposits and up-front fees collected from customers are recognized as deferred revenue until the earnings process is complete. Under the terms of our franchise agreements, we are
required to pay local franchising authorities up to 5% of our gross revenues derived from providing video service. We normally pass these fees through to our customers. Because franchise fees are our obligation, we present them on a gross basis with
a corresponding expense. Franchise fees reported on a gross basis amounted to approximately $22.7 million, $22.1 million, and $21.7 million for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively. Franchise fees are
reported in video revenue and included in selling, general and administrative expenses.

The allowance for doubtful accounts represents our best estimate of probable losses in the accounts receivable balance. The allowance is based
on the number of days outstanding, customer balances, recoveries, historical experience and other currently available information.

Concentration of Credit Risk

Our accounts receivable are comprised of amounts due from customers in varying regions throughout the United States. Concentration of credit
risk with respect to these receivables is limited due to the large number of customers comprising our customer base and their geographic dispersion. We invest our cash with high quality financial institutions.

Property, Plant and Equipment

Property, plant and equipment are recorded at cost. Additions to property, plant and equipment generally include material, labor and indirect
costs. Depreciation is calculated on a straight-line basis over the following useful lives:

Buildings

40 years

Leasehold improvements

Lesser of: life of respective lease or life of asset

Cable systems, equipment and customer devices

5-20 years

Vehicles

4-5 years

Furniture, fixtures, and office equipment

5 years

We capitalize improvements that extend asset lives and expense repairs and maintenance as incurred. At
the time of retirements, write-offs, sales or other dispositions of property, the original cost and related accumulated depreciation are removed from the respective accounts and any resulting gains or losses are included in depreciation and
amortization expense in the consolidated statement of operations.

We capitalize the costs associated with the construction of cable
transmission and distribution facilities, new customer installations and indirect costs associated with our phone service. Costs include direct labor and material, as well as certain indirect costs including capitalized interest. We perform periodic
evaluations of the estimates used to determine the amount and extent that such costs are capitalized. Any changes to these estimates, which may be significant, are applied in the period in which the evaluations were completed. The costs of
disconnecting service at a customers dwelling or reconnecting to a previously installed dwelling are charged as expense in the period incurred. Costs associated with subsequent installations of additional services not previously installed at a
customers dwelling are capitalized to the extent such costs are incremental and directly attributable to the installation of such additional services. See Note 3.

Capitalized Software Costs

We account for internal-use software development and related costs in accordance with Accounting
Standards Codification (ASC) 350-40-Intangibles-Goodwill and Other: Internal-Use Software. Software development and other related costs consist of
external and internal costs incurred in the application development stage to purchase and implement associated software. Costs incurred in the development of application and infrastructure of the software is capitalized and will be amortized over
our respective estimated useful life of 5 years. During the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, we wrote off approximately $3.3 million ($2.8 million of which were fully amortized) and $5.3 million ($4.5 million of which
was fully amortized), respectively, of software development costs. Capitalized software had a net book value of $0.2 million and $0.7 million as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively.

Marketing and Promotional Costs

Marketing and promotional costs are expensed as incurred and were $35.7 million, $31.9 million and $24.3 million for the years
ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

Intangible Assets

Our cable systems operate under non-exclusive cable franchises, or franchise rights, granted by state
and local governmental authorities for varying lengths of time. We acquired these cable franchises through acquisitions of cable systems and were accounted for using the purchase method of accounting. As of December 31, 2016, we held 501
franchises in areas located throughout the United States. The value of a franchise is derived from the economic benefits we receive from the right to solicit new customers and to market

our products and services, including video, HSD and phone, in a specific market territory. We concluded that our franchise rights have an indefinite useful life since, among other things, there
are no legal, regulatory, contractual, competitive, economic or other factors limiting the period over which these franchise rights contribute to our revenues and cash flows. Goodwill is the excess of the acquisition cost of an acquired entity over
the fair value of the identifiable net assets acquired. In accordance with ASC 350  Intangibles  Goodwill and Other (ASC 350), we do not amortize franchise rights and goodwill. Instead, such assets are tested
annually for impairment or more frequently if impairment indicators arise.

We follow the provisions of ASC 350 to test our goodwill and
franchise rights for impairment. We assess the fair values of our reporting unit using the Excess Earnings Method of the Income Approach as our discounted cash flow (DCF) methodology, under which the fair value of cable franchise rights
are determined in a direct manner. We employ the Multi-Period Excess Earnings Method to calculate the fair values of our cable franchise rights, using unobservable inputs (Level 3). This assessment involves significant judgment, including certain
assumptions and estimates that determine future cash flow expectations and other future benefits, which are consistent with the expectations of buyers and sellers of cable systems in determining fair value. These assumptions and estimates include
discount rates, estimated growth rates, terminal growth rates, comparable company data, revenues per customer, market penetration as a percentage of homes passed and operating margin. We also consider market transactions, market valuations, research
analyst estimates and other valuations using multiples of operating income before depreciation and amortization to confirm the reasonableness of fair values determined by the DCF methodology. We also employ the Greenfield model to corroborate the
fair values of our cable franchise rights determined under the In-use Excess Earnings DCF methodology. Significant impairment in value resulting in impairment charges may result if the estimates and
assumptions used in the fair value determination change in the future. Such impairments, if recognized, could potentially be material.

Based on the guidance outlined in ASC 350, we have determined that the unit of accounting or reporting unit, for testing goodwill and
franchise rights is Mediacom Broadband. Comprising cable system clusters across several states, Mediacom Broadband is at the financial reporting level that is managed and reviewed by the corporate office (i.e., chief operating decision maker)
including our determination as to how we allocate capital resources and utilize the assets. The reporting unit level also reflects the level at which the purchase method of accounting for our acquisitions was originally recorded.

In accordance with ASC 350, we are required to determine goodwill impairment using a two-step process.
The first step compares the fair value of a reporting unit with our carrying amount, including goodwill. If the fair value of the reporting unit exceeds our carrying amount, goodwill of the reporting unit is considered not impaired and the second
step is unnecessary. If the carrying amount of a reporting unit exceeds our fair value, the second step is performed to measure the amount of impairment loss, if any. The second step compares the implied fair value of the reporting units
goodwill, calculated using the residual method, with the carrying amount of that goodwill. If the carrying amount of the goodwill exceeds the implied fair value, the excess is recognized as an impairment loss.

The impairment test for our franchise rights and other intangible assets not subject to amortization consists of a comparison of the fair
value of the intangible asset with its carrying value. If the carrying value of the intangible asset exceeds its fair value, the excess is recognized as an impairment loss.

Since our adoption of ASC 350 in 2002, we have not recorded any impairments as a result of our impairment testing. We completed our most
recent impairment test as of October 1, 2016, which reflected no impairment of our franchise rights, goodwill or other intangible assets.

We could record impairments in the future if there are changes in the long-term fundamentals of our business, in general market conditions or
in the regulatory landscape that could prevent us from recovering the carrying value of our long-lived intangible assets. The economic conditions affecting the U.S. economy, and how that may impact the fundamentals of our business, may have a
negative impact on the fair values of the assets in our reporting unit.

In accordance with Accounting Standards Update No. 2010-28  When to Perform Step 2 of the Goodwill Impairment Test for Reporting Units with Zero or Negative Carrying Amounts (a consensus of the FASB Emerging Issues Task Force), as of
October 1, 2016 and 2015, we have evaluated whether there are any adverse qualitative factors surrounding our Mediacom Broadband reporting unit indicating that a goodwill impairment may exist. We do not believe that it is more likely than
not that a goodwill impairment exists. As such, we have not performed Step 2 of the goodwill impairment test. As of both December 31, 2016 and 2015, the Mediacom Broadband reporting unit had a positive carrying amount.

The following table details changes in the carrying value of goodwill for the years ended
December 31, 2016 and 2015 (dollars in thousands):

Balance - December 31, 2014

$

195,945

Acquisitions



Dispositions



Balance - December 31, 2015

$

195,945

Acquisitions



Dispositions



Balance - December 31, 2016

$

195,945

Segment Reporting

ASC 280  Segment Reporting (ASC 280) requires the disclosure of factors used to identify an enterprises
reportable segments. Our operations are organized and managed on the basis of cable system clusters within our service area. Each cable system cluster derives revenues from the delivery of similar products and services to a customer base that is
also similar. Each cable system cluster deploys similar technology to deliver our products and services, operates within a similar regulatory environment and has similar economic characteristics. We evaluated the criteria for aggregation under ASC
280 and believe that we meet each of the respective criteria set forth and accordingly, have identified broadband services as our one reportable segment.

Accounting for Derivative Instruments

We account for derivative instruments in accordance with ASC 815  Derivatives and Hedging. These pronouncements require that all
derivative instruments be recognized on the balance sheet at fair value. We enter into interest rate exchange agreements to fix the interest rate on a portion of our variable interest rate debt to reduce the potential volatility in our interest
expense that would otherwise result from changes in market interest rates. Our derivative instruments are recorded at fair value and are included in other current assets, other assets and other liabilities of our consolidated balance sheet. Our
accounting policies for these instruments are based on whether they meet our criteria for designation as hedging transactions, which include the instruments effectiveness, risk reduction and, in most cases, a one-to-one matching of the derivative instrument to our underlying transaction. Gains and losses from changes in fair values of derivatives that are not designated as hedges for accounting purposes are
recognized in the consolidated statement of operations. We have no derivative financial instruments designated as hedges. Therefore, changes in fair value for the respective periods were recognized in the consolidated statement of operations.

Accounting for Asset Retirement

We adopted ASC 410  Asset Retirement Obligations (ASC 410), on January 1, 2003. ASC 410 addresses financial
accounting and reporting for obligations associated with the retirement of tangible long-lived assets and the associated asset retirement costs. We reviewed our asset retirement obligations to determine the fair value of such liabilities and if a
reasonable estimate of fair value could be made. This entailed the review of leases covering tangible long-lived assets as well as our rights-of-way under franchise
agreements. Certain of our franchise agreements and leases contain provisions that require restoration or removal of equipment if the franchises or leases are not renewed. Based on historical experience, we expect to renew our franchise or lease
agreements. In the unlikely event that any franchise or lease agreement is not expected to be renewed, we would record an estimated liability. However, in determining the fair value of our asset retirement obligation under our franchise agreements,
consideration will be given to the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, which generally entitles the cable operator to the fair market value for the cable system covered by a franchise, if renewal is denied and the franchising
authority acquires ownership of the cable system or effects a transfer of the cable system to another person. Changes in these assumptions based on future information could result in adjustments to estimated liabilities.

Upon adoption of ASC 410, we determined that in certain instances, we are obligated by contractual terms or regulatory requirements to remove
facilities or perform other remediation activities upon the retirement of our assets. We initially recorded a $1.8 million asset in property, plant and equipment and a corresponding liability of $1.8 million. As of both December 31,
2016 and 2015, the corresponding asset, net of accumulated amortization, was $0.

In accordance with ASC 360  Property, Plant and Equipment, we periodically evaluate the recoverability and estimated lives of our
long-lived assets, including property and equipment and intangible assets subject to amortization, whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount may not be recoverable or the useful life has changed. The measurement
for such impairment loss is based on the fair value of the asset, typically based upon the future cash flows discounted at a rate commensurate with the risk involved. Unless presented separately, the loss is included as a component of either
depreciation expense or amortization expense, as appropriate.

Programming Costs

We have various fixed-term carriage contracts to obtain programming for our cable systems from content suppliers whose compensation is
generally based on a fixed monthly fee per video customer. These programming contracts are subject to negotiated renewal. Programming costs are recognized when we distribute the related programming. These programming costs are usually payable each
month based on calculations performed by us and are subject to adjustments based on the results of periodic audits by the content suppliers. Historically, such audit adjustments have been immaterial to our total programming costs. Financial
incentives, when received, are deferred within non-current liabilities in our consolidated balance sheets and recognized as a reduction of programming costs (which are a component of service costs in the
consolidated statement of operations) over the carriage term of the programming contract.

Recent Accounting
Pronouncements

In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-09 (ASU 2014-09)  Revenue from Contracts with
Customers. The guidance states that an entity should recognize revenue to depict the transfer of promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for
those goods or services. An entity should also disclose sufficient information to enable users of financial statements to understand the nature, amount, timing, and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows arising from contracts with customers. This
guidance supersedes most industry-specific guidance, including Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 51  Financial Reporting by Cable Television Companies. ASU 2014-09 is
effective for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016, including interim periods within that reporting period. Based on a preliminary assessment of certain revenue transactions performed to date, we expect that the new guidance
will impact the timing of the recognition of installation revenue and commission expenses. Under the new guidance, these amounts will be recognized as revenue and expenses, respectively, over a period of time instead of immediately, as is being done
under current practice. Installation revenues and commission expenses recorded in 2016 are each less than 2% of total revenues recorded in the same period. We are currently in the process of evaluating which method of transition will be utilized at
adoption. We continue to assess all of the potential impacts that the adoption of ASU 2014-09 will have on our consolidated financial statements, including the development of new accounting policies,
procedures and internal controls associated with the adoption of the standard.

In August 2014, the FASB issued new guidance that requires
management to assess the Companys ability to continue as a going concern and to provide related disclosures in certain circumstances. This guidance is effective for interim and fiscal years ending after December 15, 2016, with early
adoption permitted. This guidance did not have a material impact on our financial position, operations or cash flows.

In April 2015 (as
amended in August 2015), the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-03 (and ASU 2015-15) - InterestImputation of Interest (Subtopic
835-30)Simplifying the Presentation of Debt Issuance Costs (ASU 2015-03). The purpose of this guidance is to simplify the presentation of debt
issuance costs and requires that debt issuance costs related to a recognized debt liability be presented in the balance sheet as a direct deduction from the carrying amount of that debt liability, consistent with debt discounts. For public business
entities, the amendments in this update are effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2015, and interim periods within those fiscal years. An entity should apply the new guidance on a retrospective
basis, wherein the balance sheet of each individual period presented should be adjusted to reflect the period-specific effects of applying the new guidance. We adopted ASU 2015-03 and ASU 2015-15 as of January 1, 2016 and implemented retrospectively as of December 31, 2015. We reclassified $14.4 million of deferred financing costs from other assets, net to long-term debt, net (less
current portion) as of December 31, 2016 in accordance with such guidance. We reclassified $20.2 million of deferred financing costs from other assets, net to long-term debt, net (less current portion) as of December 31, 2015 in
accordance with such guidance. See Note 6.

In April 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-05 -
IntangiblesGoodwill and OtherInternal-Use Software (Subtopic 350-40) (ASU 2015-05). The objective
of ASU 2015-05 is to address the concerns of stakeholders that the lack of guidance about a customers accounting for fees in a cloud computing arrangement leads to unnecessary cost and complexity when
evaluating the accounting for those fees, as well as some diversity in practice. The amendments in ASU 2015-05 will help entities evaluate the accounting for fees

paid by a customer in a cloud computing arrangement by providing guidance as to whether an
arrangement includes the sale or license of software. Examples of cloud computing arrangements include software as a service, platform as a service, infrastructure as a service, and other similar hosting arrangements. This guidance is effective for
annual periods, including interim periods within those annual periods, beginning after December 15, 2015. We adopted this new guidance as of January 1, 2016 and determined that there was not a material impact to our operations.

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-02 - Leases (Topic 842) (ASU 2016-02). The objective of ASU 2016-02 is to address the concerns to increase the transparency around lease obligations. To address these concerns, previously unrecorded
off-balance sheet obligations will now be brought more prominently to light by presenting lease liabilities on the face of the balance sheet. Accompanied by enhanced qualitative and quantitative disclosures in
the notes to the financial statements, financial statement users will be able to more accurately compare information from one company to another. This guidance is effective for annual periods, including interim periods within those annual periods,
beginning after December 15, 2018. We have not completed our evaluation of this new guidance.

In August 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-15  Statement of Cash Flows  Clarification of Certain Cash Receipts and Cash Payments. (ASU 2016-15). Stakeholders indicated that there is
diversity in practice in how certain cash receipts and cash payments are presented and classified in the statement of cash flows under Topic 230, Statement of Cash Flows, and other topics. ASU
2016-15 addresses eight specific cash flow issues with the objective of reducing the existing diversity in practice. The amendments in ASU 2016-15 are effective for
public business entities for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017, and interim periods within those fiscal years. We do not expect ASU 2016-15 will have a material impact on financial position,
operations or cash flows upon adoption.

3. PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT

As of December 31, 2016 and 2015, property, plant and equipment consisted of (dollars in thousands):

December 31,

December 31,

2016

2015

Cable systems, equipment and customer devices

$

2,314,715

$

2,250,245

Vehicles

42,334

41,924

Buildings and leasehold improvements

36,708

35,870

Furniture, fixtures and office equipment

34,092

37,128

Land and land improvements

7,841

7,908

Property, plant and equipment, gross

$

2,435,690

$

2,373,075

Accumulated depreciation

(1,619,301

)

(1,589,422

)

Property, plant and equipment, net

$

816,389

$

783,653

Depreciation expense related to fixed assets for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014 was
$147.0 million, $143.7 million and $153.5 million, respectively. As of each of December 31, 2016 and 2015, we had no property under capitalized leases. We incurred gross interest costs of $80.9 million, $95.7 million
and $101.7 million for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively, of which $1.3 million, $1.0 million and $1.3 million were capitalized during the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014,
respectively. See Note 2.

The tables below set forth our financial assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis using a market-based approach. Our
financial assets and liabilities, all of which represent interest rate exchange agreements (which we refer to as interest rate swaps) have been categorized according to the three-level fair value hierarchy established by ASC 820 
Fair Value Measurement  (ASC 820), which prioritizes the inputs used in measuring fair value, as follows (dollars in thousands):

Level 2  Observable market based inputs or unobservable inputs that are corroborated by market
data.



Level 3  Unobservable inputs that are not corroborated by market data.

Fair Value as of December 31, 2016

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Total

Assets

Interest rate exchange agreements

$



$

1,089

$



$

1,089

Liabilities

Interest rate exchange agreements

$



$

1,763

$



$

1,763

Fair Value as of December 31, 2015

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Total

Assets

Interest rate exchange agreements

$



$

1,818

$



$

1,818

Liabilities

Interest rate exchange agreements

$



$

3,695

$



$

3,695

The fair value of our interest rate swaps represents the estimated amount that we would receive or pay to
terminate such agreements, taking into account projected interest rates, based on quoted London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) futures and the remaining time to maturity. While our interest rate swaps are subject to contractual terms
that provide for the net settlement of transactions with counterparties, we do not offset assets and liabilities under these agreements for financial statement presentation purposes, and assets and liabilities are reported on a gross basis.

As of December 31, 2016, we recorded a long-term asset of $1.1 million, a current liability in accounts payable, accrued expenses
and other current liabilities of $1.8 million and no current asset or long-term liability. As of December 31, 2015, we recorded a long-term asset of $1.8 million, a current liability in accounts payable, accrued expenses and other
current liabilities of $3.7 million and no current asset or long-term liability.

As a result of the changes in the mark-to-market valuations on our interest rate swaps, we recorded net gains on derivatives of $1.2 million, $9.2 million and $23.2 million for the years ended
December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

The credit facility is collateralized by our ownership interests in our operating subsidiaries
and is guaranteed by us on a limited recourse basis to the extent of such ownership interests. As of December 31, 2016, we had the ability to repay all outstanding debt under the credit facility at par value any time prior to maturity. As of
December 31, 2016, the credit agreement governing the credit facility (the credit agreement) required our operating subsidiaries to maintain a total leverage ratio (as defined in the credit agreement) of no more than 5.0 to 1.0 and
an interest coverage ratio (as defined in the credit agreement) of no less than 2.0 to 1.0. For all periods through December 31, 2016, our operating subsidiaries were in compliance with all covenants under the credit agreement.

Revolving Credit Commitments

On October 10, 2014, we terminated our existing revolving credit commitments and, on the same date, entered into an incremental facility
agreement that provided for $216.0 million of new revolving credit commitments, which are scheduled to expire on October 10, 2019. On December 9, 2014, August 12, 2015 and November 23, 2015, we entered into incremental
facility agreements that provided for an additional $40.0 million, $25.0 million and $87.5 million of revolving credit commitments, respectively.

Borrowings under our revolving credit commitments bear interest at a floating rate or rates equal to, at our discretion, LIBOR plus a margin
ranging from 2.00% to 2.75%, or the Prime Rate plus a margin ranging from 1.00% to 1.75%. Commitment fees on the unused portion of our revolving credit commitments are payable at a rate of 0.50% or 0.63%. The applicable margin and commitment fees
charged are determined by certain financial ratios pursuant to the credit agreement.

As of December 31, 2016, we had
$246.2 million of unused revolving credit commitments, all of which were available to be borrowed and used for general corporate purposes, after giving effect to $112.6 million of outstanding loans and $9.7 million of letters of
credit issued to various parties as collateral.

Term Loan A

On December 17, 2015, we entered into an incremental facility agreement that provided for a new term loan in the original principal amount
of $151.5 million (Term Loan A). Term Loan A matures on January 15, 2021 and, since March 31, 2016, has been subject to quarterly principal payments of $1.9 million, representing 1.25% of the original principal
amount, with a final payment at maturity of $113.6 million, representing 75.00% of the original principal amount.

Borrowings under
Term Loan A bear interest at a floating rate or rates equal to, at our discretion, LIBOR plus a margin ranging from 2.25% to 3.50%, or the Prime Rate plus a margin ranging from 1.25% to 2.50%. The applicable margin and commitment fees charged are
determined by certain financial ratios pursuant to the credit agreement.

Term Loan H

On May 29, 2013, we entered into an incremental facility agreement that provided for a new term loan in the original principal amount of
$600.0 million (Term Loan H). Term Loan H matures on January 29, 2021 and, since September 30, 2013, has been subject to quarterly principal payments of $1.5 million, representing 0.25% of the original principal
amount, with a final payment at maturity of $555.0 million, representing 92.5% of the original principal amount.

Borrowings under
Term Loan H bear interest at a floating rate or rates equal to, at our discretion, LIBOR plus a margin of 2.50% (subject to a minimum LIBOR of 0.75%), or the Prime Rate plus a margin of 1.50% (subject to a minimum Prime Rate of 1.75%).

Term Loan J

On June 20, 2014, we entered into an amended and restated credit agreement that, among other things, provided for a new term loan in the
original principal amount $300.0 million (Term Loan J). Term Loan J matures on June 30, 2021 and, since September 30, 2014, has been subject to quarterly principal payments of $0.8 million, representing 0.25% of the
original principal amount, with a final payment at maturity of $279.8 million, representing 93.25% of the original principal amount.

Borrowings under Term Loan J bear interest at a floating rate or rates equal to, at our discretion, LIBOR plus a margin of 2.75% or 3.00%
(subject to a minimum LIBOR of 0.75%), or the Prime Rate plus a margin of 1.75% or 2.00% (subject to a minimum Prime Rate of 1.75%). The applicable margin charged is determined by certain financial ratios pursuant to the credit agreement.

We have entered into several interest rate exchange agreements (which we refer to as interest rate swaps) with various banks to fix
the variable rate on a portion of our borrowings under the credit facility to reduce the potential volatility in our interest expense that may result from changes in market interest rates. Our interest rate swaps have not been designated as hedges
for accounting purposes, and have been accounted for on a mark-to-market basis as of, and for the years ended, December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014. As of
December 31, 2016, we had current interest rate swaps that fixed the variable portion of $600 million of borrowings at a rate of 1.5%, all of which are scheduled to expire during December 2018.

As of December 31, 2016, the weighted average interest rate on outstanding borrowings under the credit facility, including the effect of
our interest rate swaps, was 3.5%.

Senior Notes

As of December 31, 2016, we had $500.0 million of outstanding senior notes, comprising $200.0 million of 5 1⁄2% senior notes due April 2021 (the 5 1⁄2% Notes), and
$300.0 million of 6 3⁄8%senior notes due April 2023 (the
6 3⁄8% Notes).

Our senior notes are
unsecured obligations and, as of December 31, 2016, the indentures governing our senior notes (the indentures) limits the incurrence of additional indebtedness based upon a maximum debt to operating cash flow ratio (as defined in
the indentures) of 8.5 to 1.0. For all periods through December 31, 2016, we were in compliance with all of the covenants under the indentures.

5 1⁄2% Notes

On March 17, 2014, we issued the 5 1⁄2% Notes in
the aggregate principal amount of $200.0 million. Net proceeds from the 5 1⁄2% Notes funded a partial repayment of certain previously existing term loans.

As a percentage of par value, the 5 1⁄2% Notes
are redeemable at 102.750% commencing April 15, 2017, 101.375% commencing April 15, 2018 and at par value commencing April 15, 2019.

6 3⁄8%Notes

On August 28, 2012, we issued the
6 3⁄8%Notes in the aggregate principal amount of $300.0 million. Net proceeds from the 6 3⁄8% Notes were used to fund, in part, the redemption of certain previously existing senior notes.

As a percentage of par value, the 6 3⁄8%Notes are redeemable at 103.188% commencing April 1, 2018, 102.125% commencing April 1, 2019, 101.063% commencing April 1, 2020 and at par value commencing April 1, 2021.

Loss on Early Extinguishment of Debt

Loss on early extinguishment of debt totaled $1.2 million, $4.4 million and $0.3 million for the years ended December 31,
2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively, which represented the write-off of unamortized deferred financing costs as a result of the repayment of certain previously existing term loans under the credit facility.

Deferred Financing Costs

We adopted ASU 2015-03 and ASU 2015-15 as of January 1,
2016, and implemented retrospectively as of December 31, 2015. In accordance with such guidance, we reclassified $14.4 million and $20.2 million of deferred financing costs from other assets, net to long-term debt, net (less current
portion) as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively.

Debt Ratings

MCCs corporate credit ratings are currently Ba3 by Moodys, with a positive outlook, and BB by Standard and Poors
(S&P), with a stable outlook, and our senior unsecured ratings are currently B2 by Moodys, with a positive outlook, and B+ by S&P, with a stable outlook. There are no covenants, events of default, borrowing conditions or
other terms in the credit agreement or indentures that are based on changes in our credit rating assigned by any rating agency.

The fair values of our senior notes and outstanding debt under the credit facility (which were calculated based upon market prices of such
issuances in an active market when available) were as follows as of December 31, 2016 and 2015 (dollars in thousands):

December 31,

2016

2015

5 1⁄2%
senior notes due 2021

$

205,500

$

191,500

6 3⁄8%
senior notes due 2023

316,500

291,750

Total senior notes

$

522,000

$

483,250

Bank credit facility

$

1,135,633

$

1,317,990

The scheduled maturities of all debt outstanding as of December 31, 2016 are as follows (dollars in
thousands):

Bank Credit Facility

Senior

Revolving Credit

Term Loans

Notes

Total

January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017

$



$

16,575

$



$

16,575

January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018



16,575



16,575

January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019

112,575

16,575



129,150

January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020



16,575



16,575

January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021



949,125

200,000

1,149,125

Thereafter





300,000

300,000

Total

$

112,575

$

1,015,425

$

500,000

$

1,628,000

7. PREFERRED MEMBERS INTEREST

In July 2001, we received a $150.0 million preferred membership investment (PMI) from the operating subsidiaries of Mediacom
LLC, which has a 12% annual dividend, payable quarterly in cash. We may voluntarily repay the PMI at any time at par, and the operating subsidiaries of Mediacom LLC have the option to call for the redemption of the PMI upon the repayment of all of
our outstanding senior notes. We paid $18.0 million in cash dividends on the PMI during each of the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015, and 2014.

8. MEMBERS EQUITY

As a
wholly-owned subsidiary of MCC, our business affairs, including our financing decisions, are directed by MCC. See Note 9.

Capital
contributions from parent and capital distributions to parent are reported on a gross basis in the Consolidated Statements of Changes in Members Equity and the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows. We received capital contributions from
parent of $75.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2016, and no capital contributions from parent during each of the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014. We made capital distributions to parent in cash of $7.0 million, $0
and $163.3 million during the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

9. RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS

Management Agreements

MCC manages us
pursuant to management agreements with our operating subsidiaries. Under such agreements, MCC has full and exclusive authority to manage our day to day operations and conduct our business. We remain responsible for all expenses and liabilities
relating to the construction, development, operation, maintenance, repair, and ownership of our systems.

As compensation for the
performance of its services, subject to certain restrictions, MCC is entitled under each management agreement to receive management fees in an amount not to exceed 4.0% of the annual gross operating revenues of our operating subsidiaries. MCC is
also entitled to the reimbursement of all expenses necessarily incurred in its capacity as manager. MCC charged us management fees of $20.8 million, $19.0 million and $17.7 million during the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015
and 2014, respectively.

Substantially all our employees are eligible to participate in MCCs defined contribution plan pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code
Section 401(k) (MCCs Plan). Under MCCs Plan, eligible employees may contribute a portion of their current pretax compensation (as defined by MCCs Plan). MCCs Plan permits, but does not require, matching
contributions and non-matching (profit sharing) contributions to be made by us up to a maximum dollar amount or maximum percentage of participant contributions, as determined annually by us. We presently match
50% on the first 6% of employee contributions. Our contributions under MCCs Plan totaled $1.2 million, $1.3 million and $1.3 million for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively, which were recorded in
service costs and selling, general and administrative expenses.

11. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Leases

Under
various lease and rental agreements for offices, warehouses and computer terminals, we had rental expense of $4.1 million, $4.0 million and $5.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively. Future
minimum annual rental payments as of December 31, 2016 are as follows (dollars in thousands):

January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017

$

2,055

January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018

1,427

January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019

1,077

January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020

805

January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021

668

Thereafter

1,618

Total

$

7,650

Other Obligations

In addition, we rent utility poles in our operations generally under short-term arrangements, but we expect these arrangements to recur. Total
rental expense for utility poles was approximately $4.2 million, $4.3 million and $4.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

Letters of Credit

As of December 31, 2016, $9.7 million of letters of credit were issued to various parties to secure our performance relating to
insurance and franchise requirements. The fair value of such letters of credit was approximately book value.

Legal Proceedings

We are involved in various legal actions arising in the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of management, the ultimate
disposition of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations, cash flows or business.

CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL
DISCLOSURE

None.

ITEM 9A.

CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES

Mediacom Broadband LLC

Under the
supervision and with the participation of the management of Mediacom Broadband LLC, including Mediacom Broadband LLCs Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, Mediacom Broadband LLC evaluated the effectiveness of its disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) as of the end of the period covered by this report. Based
upon such evaluation, Mediacom Broadband LLCs Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that Mediacom Broadband LLCs disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of December 31, 2016.

There has not been any change in Mediacom Broadband LLCs internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Exchange Act) during the year ended December 31, 2016 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
Mediacom Broadband LLCs internal control over financial reporting.

Managements Report on Internal
Control Over Financial Reporting

Management of Mediacom Broadband LLC is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate
internal control over financial reporting. Internal control over financial reporting is defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Exchange Act as a process
designed by, or under the supervision of Mediacom Broadband LLCs principal executive and principal financial officers and effected by Mediacom Broadband LLCs manager, management and other personnel to provide reasonable assurance
regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and includes those policies and procedures that:



pertain to the maintenance of records that in reasonable detail accurately and fairly reflect the transactions
and dispositions of the assets of Mediacom Broadband LLC;



provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial
statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of Mediacom Broadband LLC are being made only in accordance with authorizations of the management of Mediacom Broadband LLC; and



provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use or
disposition of Mediacom Broadband LLCs assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.

Because of Mediacom Broadband LLCs inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect
misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risks that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may
deteriorate.

Management assessed the effectiveness of Mediacom Broadband LLCs internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2016. In making this assessment, management used the criteria set forth by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) in Internal Control-Integrated Framework (2013 framework). Based on this
assessment, management determined that, as of December 31, 2016, Mediacom Broadband LLCs internal control over financial reporting was effective.

This annual report does not include an attestation report of Mediacom Broadband LLCs registered public accounting firm regarding
internal control over financial reporting. Managements report was not subject to attestation by Mediacom Broadband LLCs registered public accounting firm pursuant to rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission that permit Mediacom
Broadband LLC to provide only managements report in this Annual Report.

Mediacom Broadband Corporation

Under the supervision and with the participation of the management of Mediacom Broadband Corporation (Mediacom Broadband),
including Mediacom Broadbands Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, Mediacom Broadband evaluated the effectiveness of Mediacom Broadbands disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) as of the end of the period covered by this report. Based upon such evaluation, Mediacom Broadbands
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that Mediacom Broadbands disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of December 31, 2016.

There has not been any change in Mediacom Broadbands internal control over financial
reporting (as defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Exchange Act) during the year ended December 31, 2016 that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, Mediacom Broadbands internal control over financial reporting.

Managements Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

Management of Mediacom Broadband is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting. Internal
control over financial reporting is defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Exchange Act as a process designed by, or under the supervision of Mediacom
Broadbands principal executive and principal financial officers and effected by Mediacom Broadbands board of directors, management and other personnel to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and
the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and includes those policies and procedures that:



pertain to the maintenance of records that in reasonable detail accurately and fairly reflect the transactions
and dispositions of the assets of Mediacom Broadband;



provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial
statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of Mediacom Broadband are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of Mediacom Broadband; and



provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use or
disposition of Mediacom Broadbands assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.

Because
of Mediacom Broadbands inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risks that controls may
become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

Management assessed the effectiveness of Mediacom Broadbands internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2016. In
making this assessment, management used the criteria set forth by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) in Internal Control-Integrated Framework (2013 framework). Based on this assessment, management
determined that, as of December 31, 2016, Mediacom Broadbands internal control over financial reporting was effective.

This
annual report does not include an attestation report of Mediacom Broadbands registered public accounting firm regarding internal control over financial reporting. Managements report was not subject to attestation by Mediacom
Broadbands registered public accounting firm pursuant to rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission that permit Mediacom Broadband to provide only managements report in this annual report.

Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary of MCC, MBLLC and MBC

Brian M. Walsh

51

Senior Vice President, Corporate Controller of MCC and MBLLC

Tapan Dandnaik

43

Senior Vice President, Customer Service and Financial Operations of MCC

Thomas J. Larsen

44

Senior Vice President, Government and Public Relations of MCC

Peter Lyons

47

Senior Vice President, Information Technology of MCC

David McNaughton

55

Senior Vice President, Marketing and Consumer Services of MCC

Ed Pardini

59

Senior Vice President, Field Operations of MCC

Dan Templin

53

Senior Vice President, Mediacom Business of MCC

JR Walden

45

Senior Vice President, Technology of MCC, CTO

Rocco B. Commisso has 38 years of experience with the cable industry, and has served as MCCs
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and our Chief Executive Officer since founding our predecessor company in July 1995. From 1986 to 1995, he served as Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and a director of Cablevision Industries
Corporation. Prior to that time, Mr. Commisso served as Senior Vice President of Royal Bank of Canadas affiliate in the United States from 1981, where he founded and directed a specialized lending group to media and communications
companies. Mr. Commisso began his association with the cable industry in 1978 at The Chase Manhattan Bank, where he managed the banks lending activities to communications firms including the cable industry. Mr. Commisso serves on the
board of directors of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, C-SPAN and Cable Television Laboratories, Inc. He was inducted into the 2007 Broadcasting & Cable Hall of Fame.
Mr. Commisso holds a Bachelor of Science in Industrial Engineering and a Master of Business Administration from Columbia University.

Mark E. Stephan has 30 years of experience with the cable industry, and has served as MCCs, and our Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer since July 2005. Prior to that time, he was Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer since November 2003 and MCCs Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer since the
commencement of MCCs operations in March 1996. Before joining MCC, Mr. Stephan served as Vice President, Finance for Cablevision Industries from July 1993. Prior to that time, Mr. Stephan served as Manager of the telecommunications
and media lending group of Royal Bank of Canada. Mr. Stephan has been a director of MCC since May 2011 and was previously a director of MCC from March 2000 to March 2011.

John G. Pascarelli has 35 years of experience in the cable industry, and has served as MCCs Executive Vice President, Operations
since November 2003. Prior to that time, he was MCCs Senior Vice President, Marketing and Consumer Services from June 2000 and MCCs Vice President of Marketing from March 1998. Before joining MCC, Mr. Pascarelli served as Vice
President, Marketing for Helicon Communications Corporation from January 1996 to February 1998 and as Corporate Director of Marketing for Cablevision Industries from 1988 to 1995. Prior to that time, Mr. Pascarelli served in various marketing
and system management capacities for Continental Cablevision, Inc., Cablevision Systems and Storer Communications.

Italia Commisso
Weinand has 40 years of experience in the cable industry, and serves on MCCs board, and is the Executive Vice President of Programming and Human Resources since May 2012. Prior to that time, she was MCCs Senior Vice President of
Programming and Human Resources since February 1998 and MCCs Vice President of Operations since April 1996. Before joining MCC, Ms. Weinand served as Regional Manager for Comcast Corporation from July 1985. Prior to that time,
Ms. Weinand held various management positions with Time Warner, Inc., Times Mirror Cable and Tele-Communications, Inc. For the past seven years she has been named among the Most Powerful Women in Cable by CableFax Magazine and
presently serves on the Board of The Cable Center, the Emma Bowen Foundation and CTAM Educational Foundation Board. Ms. Weinand was inducted in 2004 into the Wonder Women and into the 2014 Broadcasting & Cable Hall of
Fame. Ms. Weinand is the sister of Mr. Commisso. Ms. Weinand has been a director of MCC since May 2011.

Joseph E. Young has 34 years of experience with the cable industry, and has served as
Senior Vice President, General Counsel since November 2001. Prior to that time, Mr. Young served as Executive Vice President, Legal and Business Affairs, for LinkShare Corporation, an Internet-based provider of marketing services, from
September 1999 to October 2001. Prior to that time, he practiced corporate law with Baker & Botts, LLP from January 1996 to September 1999. Previously, Mr. Young was a partner with the Law Offices of Jerome H. Kern and a partner with
Shea & Gould.

Brian M. Walsh has 29 years of experience in the cable industry, and has served as MCCs Senior Vice
President and Corporate Controller since February 2005. Prior to that time, he was MCCs Senior Vice President, Financial Operations from November 2003, MCCs Vice President, Finance and Assistant to the Chairman from November 2001,
MCCs Vice President and Corporate Controller from February 1998 and MCCs Director of Accounting from November 1996. Before joining MCC in April 1996, Mr. Walsh held various management positions with Cablevision Industries from 1988
to 1995.

Tapan Dandnaik has 16 years of experience in the cable industry, and has served as MCCs Senior Vice President,
Customer Service & Financial Operations since July 2008. In 2013, he also assumed responsibilities for our centralized field support operations. Prior to that time, he was MCCs Group Vice President, Financial Operations since July
2007 and MCCs Vice President, Financial Operations since May 2005. Before joining MCC, Mr. Dandnaik served as Director of Corporate Initiatives, Manager of Corporate Finance and as a Financial Analyst for RCN from July 2000 to April 2005.
Prior to that time, Mr. Dandnaik served as a Product Engineer for Ingersoll-Rand in India. Mr. Dandnaik was the recipient of the National Cable & Telecommunication Associations Vanguard Award for Young Leadership in 2012 and
serves on The Cable Center Customer Care Committee.

Thomas J. Larsen has 16 years of experience in the cable industry, and has
served as MCCs Senior Vice President, Government and Public Relations since July 2015. Prior to that time, he was MCCs Group Vice President, Legal and Public Affairs since July 2010 and MCCs Vice President, Legal and Public
Affairs since August 2006. Prior to joining MCC, Mr. Larsen worked as Vice President, Law and Public Policy for Adelphia Communications Corporations Western Region. He serves on the board of directors of the American Cable
Association

Peter Lyons has 10 years of experience in the cable industry, and has served as MCCs Senior Vice President,
Information Technology since July 2015. Prior to that time, he was MCCs Group Vice President, Information Technology from July 2010, MCCs Vice President, Information Technology since March 2007. Before joining MCC in 2007,
Mr. Lyons held various senior technology leadership positions at The College Board and Video Update and has 21 years of experience in education and retail businesses.

David McNaughton has 29 years of experience in the telecommunications industry, and has served as MCCs Senior Vice President,
Marketing and Sales since May 2011. Before joining MCC, Mr. McNaughton served as Chief Marketing Officer for Ntelos Wireless, a Virginia-based regional wireless carrier from 2009 and Senior Vice President and General Manager at Cincinnati Bell
from 2007, responsible for wireless, landline and DSL services. Prior to that time, he served as Senior Vice President, Acquisition Marketing at DirecTV, Vice President, Customer Lifecycle and Retention at Nextel Communications, and various
executive positions at AirTouch Cellular and Andersen Consulting.

Ed Pardini has 34 years of experience in the cable industry, and
has served as MCCs Senior Vice President of the Field Operations Group since May 2012. Prior to that time, he was Senior Vice President, Divisional Operations for the North Central Division from April 2006. Before joining MCC, Mr. Pardini
served as an operating executive in several markets with Comcast since 1989, concluding his final assignment as a Senior Regional Vice President for Philadelphia and eastern Pennsylvania. Prior to that time, Mr. Pardini served in various
financial management positions with Greater Media Cable and Viacom Cable.

Dan Templin has 25 years of experience in the cable and
broadband industries, and has served as MCCs Senior Vice President, Mediacom Business and President of MCCs CLEC entities since April 2011. His responsiblities for Mediacom Business include SMB and Enterprise network services and also
the OnMedia advertising sales unit. Prior to that time, he was MCCs Group Vice President, Strategic Marketing and Product Development since May 2008. Before joining MCC, Mr. Templin served in a number of senior operations, product and
marketing roles with Susquehanna Communications, Comcast and Jones Intercable.

JR Walden has 21 years of experience in the cable
industry, and 23 years of experience in Internet and Telecommunications technology. He has served as MCCs Senior Vice President, Technology since February 2008. Prior to that time, he was MCCs Group Vice President, IP Services from July
2004, MCCs Vice President, IP Services from July 2003, MCCs Senior Director of IP Services from June 2002 and MCCs IP Services Director from October 1998. Before joining MCC in 1998, Mr. Walden worked in the defense research
industry holding various positions with the Department of Defense, Comarco and Science Applications International Corporation.

Our manager has adopted a code of ethics applicable to all of our employees, including our chief
executive officer, chief financial officer and chief accounting officer. This code of ethics was filed as an exhibit to our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003.

ITEM 11.

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

The executive officers and directors of MCC are compensated exclusively by MCC and do not receive any separate compensation from Mediacom
Broadband LLC or Mediacom Broadband Corporation. MCC acts as manager of our operating subsidiaries and in return receives management fees from each of such subsidiaries.

Mediacom Broadband Corporation is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mediacom Broadband
LLC. MCC is the sole voting member of Mediacom Broadband. The address of MCC is 1 Mediacom Way, Mediacom Park, New York 10918.

ITEM 13.

CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS

Management Agreements

Pursuant to management agreements between MCC and our operating subsidiaries, MCC is entitled to receive annual management fees in amounts not
to exceed 4.0% of gross operating revenues, and MCC shall be responsible for, among other things, the compensation (including benefits) of MCCs executive management. For the year ended December 31, 2016, MCC charged us $20.8 million
of such management fees, approximately 2.0% of gross operating revenues.

Other Relationships

In July 2001, we received a $150 million preferred membership interest from Mediacom LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of MCC. The preferred
membership interest has a 12% annual dividend, payable quarterly in cash. For the year ended December 31, 2016, we paid an aggregate of $18 million in cash dividends on the preferred membership interest.

ITEM 14.

PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING FEES AND SERVICES

Our allocated portion of fees from MCC for professional services provided by our independent auditor in each of the last two fiscal years, in
each of the following categories are as follows (dollars in thousands):

Year Ended

December 31,

2016

2015

Audit fees

$

400

$

400

Audit-related fees



4

Tax fees





All other fees

1

1

Total

$

401

$

405

Audit fees include fees associated with the annual audit, the reviews of our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and annual reports on Form 10-K. Audit-related fees include fees associated with the audit of an employee benefit plan and transaction reviews.

Incremental Facility Agreement, dated as of December 17, 2015, among Mediacom Communications Corporation, Mediacom
Broadband LLC, the operating subsidiaries of Mediacom Broadband LLC, the lenders party thereto and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as administrative agent for the lenders(4)

10.2

Incremental Facility Agreement, dated as of November 23, 2015, among Mediacom Communications Corporation, Mediacom
Broadband LLC, the operating subsidiaries of Mediacom Broadband LLC, the lenders party thereto and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as administrative agent for the lenders(4)

10.3

Incremental Facility Agreement, dated as of August 12, 2015, among Mediacom Communications Corporation, Mediacom
Broadband LLC, the operating subsidiaries of Mediacom Broadband LLC, the lenders party thereto and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as administrative agent for the lenders(5)

10.4

Incremental Facility Agreement, dated as of December 9, 2014, among Mediacom Communications Corporation, Mediacom
Broadband LLC, the operating subsidiaries of Mediacom Broadband LLC, the lenders party thereto and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as administrative agent for the lenders(6)

10.5

Incremental Facility Agreement, dated as of October 10, 2014, among Mediacom Communications Corporation, Mediacom
Broadband LLC, the operating subsidiaries of Mediacom Broadband LLC, the lenders party thereto and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as administrative agent for the lenders(6)

10.6

Third Restatement Agreement to Credit Agreement, dated as of June 20, 2014, among Mediacom Communications Corporation,
Mediacom Broadband LLC, the operating subsidiaries of Mediacom Broadband LLC, the lenders party thereto and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as administrative agent for the
lenders(7)

10.7

Third Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated as of June 20, 2014, among the operating subsidiaries of Mediacom
Broadband LLC, the lenders party thereto and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as administrative agent for the lenders(8)

12.1

Schedule of Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges and Preferred Dividends

The following is financial information from Mediacom Broadband LLCs and Mediacom Broadband Corporations Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015, formatted in eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL): (i) Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2015 and 2014; (ii)
Consolidated Statements of Operations for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013; (iii) Consolidated Statements of Changes in Members Deficit for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013; (iv) Consolidated
Statements of Cash Flows for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013; and (v) Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(1)

Filed as an exhibit to the Registration Statement on Form S-4 (File No. 333-72440) of Mediacom Broadband LLC and Mediacom Broadband Corporation and incorporated herein by reference.

(2)

Filed as an exhibit to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2012 of Mediacom Broadband LLC and incorporated herein by reference.

(3)

Filed as an exhibit to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2014 of Mediacom Broadband LLC and incorporated herein by reference.

(4)

Filed as an exhibit to the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2015 of Mediacom Broadband LLC and incorporated herein by reference.

(5)

Filed as an exhibit to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015 of Mediacom Broadband LLC and incorporated herein by reference.

(6)

Filed as an exhibit to the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2014 of Mediacom Broadband LLC and incorporated herein by reference.

(7)

Filed as an exhibit to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014 of Mediacom Broadband LLC and incorporated herein by reference.

(8)

Filed as Exhibit A to Exhibit 10.1 to the Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014 of Mediacom Broadband LLC and incorporated herein by reference.

(9)

Filed as an exhibit to the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2003 of Mediacom Broadband LLC and incorporated herein by reference.

(c) Financial Statement
Schedule

The following financial statement schedule  Schedule II  Valuation of Qualifying Accounts  is part of
this Form 10-K.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on our behalf by
the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

Mediacom Broadband LLC

March 3, 2017

By:

/S/ MARK E. STEPHAN

Mark E. Stephan

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the
following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on our behalf by
the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

Mediacom Broadband Corporation

March 3, 2017

By:

/S/ MARK E. STEPHAN

Mark E. Stephan

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the
following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.

Signature

Title

Date

/S/ ROCCO B. COMMISSO

Chief Executive Officer and Director

March 3, 2017

Rocco B. Commisso

(principal executive officer)

/S/ MARK E. STEPHAN

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

March 3, 2017

Mark E. Stephan

(principal financial officer and principal accounting officer)

Supplemental Information to be Furnished with Reports Filed Pursuant to Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by Registrants Which Have not Registered Securities Pursuant to Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Registrants have not sent and will not send any proxy material to their security holders. A copy of this annual report on Form 10-K will be sent to holders of the Registrants outstanding debt securities.

73

EX-12.1

Exhibit 12.1

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

Year ended December 31,

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

Earnings:

Income before income taxes

$

171,886

$

143,993

$

137,449

$

118,947

$

75,253

Interest expense, net

78,725

94,668

100,436

96,203

112,561

Amortization of capitalized interest

620

756

1,090

1,337

1,295

Amortization of debt issuance costs

5,617

6,909

6,132

5,332

5,109

Interest component of rent
expense(1)

2,782

2,773

3,066

3,042

3,081

Earnings available for fixed charges

$

259,630

$

249,099

$

248,173

$

224,861

$

197,299

Fixed Charges and Preferred Dividends:

Interest expense, net

$

78,725

$

94,668

$

100,436

$

96,203

$

112,561

Capitalized interest

1,283

989

1,258

1,140

1,646

Amortization of debt issuance cost

5,617

6,909

6,132

5,332

5,109

Interest component of rent
expense(1)

2,782

2,773

3,066

3,042

3,081

Preferred dividends

18,000

18,000

18,000

18,000

18,000

Total fixed charges and preferred dividends

$

106,407

$

123,339

$

128,892

$

123,717

$

140,397

Ratio of earnings over fixed charges and preferred dividends

2.44

2.02

1.93

1.82

1.41

(1)

A reasonable approximation (one-third) is deemed to be the interest factor included in rental expense.

EX-21.1

Exhibit 21.1

Subsidiaries of Mediacom Broadband LLC

Subsidiary

State of Incorporationor Organization

Names Under whichSubsidiary does Business

Mediacom Broadband Corporation

Delaware

Mediacom Broadband Corporation

MCC Georgia LLC

Delaware

MCC Georgia LLC

MCC Illinois LLC

Delaware

MCC Illinois LLC

MCC Iowa LLC

Delaware

MCC Iowa LLC

MCC Missouri LLC

Delaware

MCC Missouri LLC

EX-31.1

Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Rocco B. Commisso,
certify that:

(1)

I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Mediacom Broadband LLC;

(2)

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

(3)

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

(4)

The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control
over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and l5d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:

a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)

Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of
financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

c)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

d)

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter
in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

(5)

The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

March 3, 2017

By:

/s/ ROCCO B. COMMISSO

Rocco B. Commisso

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Mark E. Stephan, certify that:

(1)

I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Mediacom Broadband LLC;

(2)

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

(3)

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

(4)

The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control
over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and l5d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:

a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)

Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of
financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

c)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

d)

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter
in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

(5)

The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

March 3, 2017

By:

/s/ MARK E. STEPHAN

Mark E. Stephan

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

EX-31.2

Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Rocco B. Commisso,
certify that:

(1)

I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Mediacom Broadband Corporation;

(2)

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

(3)

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

(4)

The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control
over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and l5d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:

a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)

Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of
financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

c)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

d)

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter
in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

(5)

The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

March 3, 2017

By:

/s/ ROCCO B. COMMISSO

Rocco B. Commisso

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Mark E. Stephan, certify that:

(1)

I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Mediacom Broadband Corporation;

(2)

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

(3)

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

(4)

The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control
over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and l5d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:

a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)

Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of
financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

c)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

d)

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter
in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

(5)

The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

March 3, 2017

By:

/s/ MARK E. STEPHAN

Mark E. Stephan

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

EX-32.1

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Mediacom Broadband LLC (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2016 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Rocco B. Commisso, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and Mark E. Stephan, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)

the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)

the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

March 3, 2017

By:

/s/ ROCCO B. COMMISSO

Rocco B. Commisso

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

By:

/s/ MARK E. STEPHAN

Mark E. Stephan

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

EX-32.2

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Mediacom Broadband Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2016
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Rocco B. Commisso, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and Mark E. Stephan, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)

the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)

the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.